Chronic problem property ordinance takes aim at landlords

GOSHEN — Goshen residents with long-standing nuisance neighbors hope to get relief from new efforts the city may take to hold landlords accountable.

Goshen Common Council has introduced an ordinance that targets chronic disorderly properties. It sets an escalating series of penalties for owners or occupants of properties that are deemed a persistent public nuisance, due to sucking up city time and resources by drawing frequent visits from police or code enforcement.

Residents who spoke in favor of the measure had plenty of examples to give, including several people who live along 6th Street. Many people expressed frustration over the same properties continuing to be an annoyance at best and a danger at worst year after year, leaving them feeling powerless.

That includes Lisa Jordan, who said she’d rather mind her own business but finds it impossible to ignore a house that draws dozens of complaints to the police and leaves her feeling unsafe.

“This isn’t about loud music. This isn’t about even trash for me. This is about me feeling like I can’t let my kids get their bikes out. I don’t feel safe taking my bike out without my husband there,” she said. “I have had to train my children that when things are happening at that house, they know they are to run in the house and come get me immediately. There have been 80 police calls – that doesn’t even begin to show the number of times that things are happening on that property.”

Calling the police is the only way the neighborhood gets a moment of peace, said Brandon Rhodes, who lives nearby.

“I just wanted to first express the neighborhood’s excitement at seeing the number of flashing lights in the last week or two. We felt far less alone and we felt very supported,” he said. “We fell asleep to blue lights flashing in the window, because we knew that at least that night, the property was being looked after.”

Prohibited conduct spelled out in the ordinance ranges from gambling, disorderly conduct and criminal recklessness to gang activity and drug dealing. It also includes excessive noise and the use of fireworks.

“Pretty much everything that’s listed in here as a problem is reason enough to evict somebody,” Councilman Brett Weddell said. “In that case, if they choose not to evict them, then they should be held responsible.”

A property that receives a certain number of complaints in a given time period will be referred to the city attorney. If they find there’s cause to deem it a disorderly property, and at the same time that enforcement wouldn’t punish victims of crimes or people with mental or physical impairments, they may pursue action against it.

The ordinance spells out penalties such as seeking injunctive relief from the court, issuing fines of $2,500 or more and possibly the revocation of a landlord’s rental registration with the city. City Attorney Bodie Stegelmann said the ordinance goes beyond code enforcement and issuing tickets.

“With the level of criminal activity or the accumulation of materials or other violations, this is beyond the writing tickets and taking it to the ordinance violations bureau. We haven’t gained compliance, so this is adding teeth to the enforcement that’s already being done,” he said. “I think the current system of enforcing ordinances will continue, but this is really about certain properties taking inordinate amount of city resources in the form of code enforcement and in the form of police.”

Mayor Gina Leichty said the law isn’t meant to unfairly punish tenants.

“The intent of this law is specifically ... not to be punitive towards tenants, it’s to hold those landlords accountable. It’s another tool for the city to hold landlords and property owners accountable,” she said. “What we’re trying to address is incentivizing those property owners who – I sat across the table from a property owner who did not care and was very willing to let these issues continue to happen and impact his neighborhood and impact everyone around him, without doing anything. And it’s time to put a stop to that.”

Council members passed the ordinance only on a first-reading vote because they agreed to gather more feedback before final passage.