Hey, there! Log in / Register
City Council to consider licensing landlords; bad ones could be barred from renting property
By adamg on Wed, 05/25/2011 - 2:13pm
The City Council voted today it is fed up with absentee landlords who let their properties go to hell and backed a hearing proposed by Councilor Maureen Feeney (Dorchester) on cracking down on them.
Feeney said she plans a hearing at which she will consider landlord licensing that would "disqualify poorly attentive landlords from operating rental properties." Her hearing was co-sponsored by Councilor Mike Ross.
Feeney told her colleagues, "It's being a good parent. When you have children who don't understand and you have landlords who don't understand what it is to be a good neighbor, then it's up to us. People should not live in our neighborhoods and feel unsafe. ... You're adults, and it's about time you start acting (like it)."
She said she's had enough of calling landlords in New York and other states trying to get work done on problem properties; she cited one elderly constituent now afraid to leave her house - or even open her windows - because of "punks" who have taken up in an absentee-owned property next door.
Neighborhoods:
Topics:
Free tagging:
Ad:
Support Universal Hub
Help keep Universal Hub going. If you like what we're up to and want to help out, please consider a (completely non-deductible) contribution.
Comments
Doesn't the city already have
Doesn't the city already have housing inspectors?
Not the same thing
It's REALLY hard to get the owner of housing cited unless the tenant is the one calling ISD. If the tenant is causing the problems and won't let ISD in, then they can't inspect. Same with the public health folks.
In my line of work we sometimes run into unsafe/unsanitary living situations in which we're mandated to report the situation. If there's a minor in the home, DCF can take the minor (but the adult stays there and gets few services around their issues), but if not, I've never had any luck getting anyone to inspect the housing or do anything about it. DPPC usually screens these out, and ISD and public health won't usually come out.
It's REALLY hard to get the
Isn't this supposed to be a pro-tenant regulation? There are housing regulations. There are housing inspectors. It is their job to inspect houses to support housing regulations. What am I missing? This is an attempt to pile a new bureaucracy on top of old.
Nuisance houses only bother the occupants?
For one, you can't get housing inspected if, say, you're not the tenant and the place is grossly unsanitary and you're the person's outreach worker. The fire department will come in if it's a fire hazard, but for other hazards, you can't get anyone to come.
If you're a neighbor and the place reeks into your place or is infested and is getting your place infested, you have little recourse either.
Another housing regulation the city doesn't enforce is the noise law. Police say it's an ISD issue, ISD won't come out if the noise source is in someone else's unit.
Even if a tenant does call
And the inspector cites the landlord for code violations, doesn't mean that the landlord won't illegally retaliate and evict the tenant. My Slumlord did this to our family, we went to court to fight the eviction, slumlord made a deal with my attorney which satisfied the court, then broke the agreement a week later by sending out the constable for a final eviction and moved us out. The constable and his flunkies stole about half of our belongings and broke a lot more by just throwing them into the storage unit. I'm out THOUSANDS of dollars, the landlady rented the apartment without doing one single repair and the court sat silent. This was in Newton. So tenants, beware that landlords hold all the power.
That's absolutely and totally vile, anon!
You should've been able to get some sort of recompensation for this kind of vile, disgusting and illegal s**t that your Slumlord dumped on your and your family, regardless of where it is. Doesn't the city of Newton have some sort of Tenant Advocate and Protection organization that you could go through? When did this happen, btw? Just curious, because one generally doesn't hear about such drastic goings-on any more, yet that doesn't mean they don't happen.
Sorry you and your family were subject to this kind of suckitude on the part of your slumlord. He belongs in jail.
Condescend much?
Ms. Feeney, it's been a long time since either myself or my landlord has been a child. We do not need you to "parent" us, thank you very much.
How about you spend your time backing the police departments efforts to enforce existing laws and your inspectors to enforce existing rules? Your constituent should be calling the police if the punks are behaving in an illegal manner. Adding new layers of bureaucracy is not going to help.
Agreed on the existing laws
!
This is ridiculous..
These councilors don't have a clue. What is a landlord supposed to do. Call the police? Confront the dangerous tenants with a gun? This is supposing someone calls him and tells him something is happening when it is happening? The neighbors and other tenants should be calling the police.
So,then the landlord tries to evict the unruly tenants. Mass. laws are so pro-tenant and anti-landlord that it can take forever to get someone out. And during that time they are probably not paying the rent.
The Libertarian In Me Says...
... just another ploy to raise revenue via extraneous licensing.
Of course, the libertarian in me says that all the time. Then I give him some Star Trek reruns to watch and he shuts up for a while.
Suldog
http://jimsuldog.blogspot.com
I'm for it
If there are clearly defined expectations, I'm all for this.
You need a license to operate many other businesses, but not a license to rent out property? I've been a tenant in one way or another since college. I've had my share of terrible landlords.
"Others do it" = Bad argument
Just because other businesses do it doesn't mean it's a good idea. In many cases, licenses for other businesses don't make any sense at all. Does having a license for "interior decoration" make any sense? No! How about "cutting hair" or "doing manicures?" Yet these kind of licensing requirements are common but mostly nonsensical from a public safety standpoint.
The reason why licenses get implemented is to erect a barrier to competition. Business owners love erecting barriers to competition because that ensures profits for themselves. The biggest losers are customers.
So no, licensing is not a cut and dried issue. It should only be instituted in the absolute case of protecting public safety, and then only because there is no better way.
As the human condition goes,
As the human condition goes, shelter is just about as vital as it can get. I understand the point you were making, but come on. Housing is a BIG DEAL. If you don't license THAT, then what?
some yes, some no
Interior Decorator? No, I agree--no license needed to pick out colors of throw pillows
Interior DESIGNER? Yes. They deal with plumbing/HVAC/electrical issues, structural integrity, fire codes, etc.
Cutting Hair? probably dates back to the days of razor wielding barbers. Maybe a license was once necessary to wield a knife so close to someone's face, but not so much these days.
Manicurist---maybe. Those people wear masks...dangerous fumes may be involved. Plus some of the mani/pedi places don't properly clean their equipment before using it again on someone else's cuticles. Maybe not such a bad idea.
Landlords? probably not a great idea...why not enforce and/or tweak the laws/regs already on the books.
For public safety
Hairdressers can use chemicals that can burn your scalp, and also are supposed to sanitize their shears and everything else they touch you with. I'm in favor of them being licensed for everyone's health.
I don't have a problem with the landlord license thing, because they're providing an aspect of someone's basic health and safety, and I really have no problem with requiring them to be a little accountable and required to know some basic rules about what constitutes decent housing and decent treatment of people.
How can I forget that//?
Man, did I really forget my younger days of perm-ing my hair? Yes, they can burn scalp, you're right..and still cut you.
A Day Late A Dollar Short
Most certainly unconstitutional in the country. How about a municipal workforce that can recognize these problems for what they are and lead to and know the system well enuf to correct the problem. Laws are in place, a Housing Court exists.
Certainly not unconstitutional
There are many jurisdictions in which every person who operates a business needs a business license. In Massachusetts only certain professions need a license, but this isn't unconstitutional.
Business licenses
It's arguable that if two consenting adults want to engage in a financial transaction, that the government is out of line in requiring them to obtain a license to do so.
Remember that (at the Federal level, at least) the Constitution prohibits the government from doing anything it is not specifically allowed to do, and "prohibit people from doing business unless they have a license." is or is not allowed depending upon how you interpret the Commerce clause.
Elderly paranoia
Well there could be a problem. Or it could just be unwarranted paranoia on the part of the elderly lady.
What a crazy anecdote to introduce, just to back up a potentially harmful initiative? Surely there is something more compelling.
P.S. The link is dead.
Bad link
Sometimes I hate dynamically generated URLs.
I saved a copy and posted it on Universal Hub, so the link will now actually bring up a copy of the order.
Yawn
Do these two ever do any research - or think - before they come up with random garbage like this? How, exactly, is this supposed to be effective?
Wouldn't it be better to educate landlords about their rights vs. problem tenants and their responsibilities and liabilities if they don't deal with their problem tenants? Give them a handy list of resources to support their removal of people who can't seem to behave?
Oh, but solving the problem is NEVER what they want - that would mean *gasp* nothing left to mindlessly grandstand against!
Then again, Boston could look at what many other cities do: if the property owner won't do what they are supposed to do, the city does it and charges for the privilege!
Far be it from me to defend Boston city councilors
But one of the reasons they hold hearings is to gather evidence that could shape whatever they finally come up with.
The problem
None of them seem to even know how to use Google first, or look at an urban planning journal or two to shape their ideas about what might work.
"run your mouth from the grandstand and get inflammatory reactions and much look at me I'm loyal mooing and baaaahing" is not gathering eviddence or data.
Another city profit center
I believe that Councilor Feeney genuinely believes that more teeth are needed to force lousy landlords to perform a minimum of maintenance. But that is the Mayor's job. Oh right, the Mayor is busy thinking up new schemes which generally go nowhere, arm twisting local businesses to donate to his pet causes (and then condemning them when they complain his own administration demands payment for the privilege of donating to the major's pet cause).
What the Councilor might be unaware of however is that landlords are supposed to arrange for a Housing Inspector to inspect a property prior to each rental (and of course at the landlord's expense). Landlord licensing would simply be a redundancy on top of already existing ordinance.
But why might it pass? Because ultimately this boils down to another profit center for the city. It will not provide actual enforcement or increase the quality of rental stock (because it would require more inspectors), but it will increase rents to compensate landlords for the cost of buying, I mean, qualifying for the license.
Somehow I see a lot of money going into the city coffers but less and less coming back to the city's residents (e.g., tax breaks to Fidelity and Vertex).
Apartment certification
the city already requires each apartment be certified:
http://www.cityofboston.gov/isd/housing/rental.asp
why doesn't Feeney go after landlords with that ordinance? How is licensing the landlord going to be any different from licensing the apartment?
Tie it to Taxes
Get the state to require a certification number for any deductions taken against income from a rental property within the City of Boston. If there are problems, the city can then refuse to recertify the property, and the state can disallow any tax deductions against the rental income. Other cities can follow suit as they so choose.
Yes, and NO ONE does it
There's a list of certified rental units on there. Pull up any street you live on or are familiar with that you know has renters. The street might not even come up, or might have like one apartment when the whole street are renters.
I wonder if it's possible to enforce that law instead of adding a new one?
Well.
So I went to the list and most of the units in my building and the buildings surrounding mine showed up. And I live in Allston. With a landlord who has a lot of bad reviews online, but I've had no problems with.
It looks like if there is time between tenants, my landlord does the inspection. If someone moves out on the last of the month and then someone else moves in the next day, it doesn't happen.
This anon feels like Going Boston Herald
I feel like going all Boston Herald on this topic, but I'll forbear and say only that this is a terminally stupid idea, along with the idiotic inspection/certification ordinance.
Nobody's going to comply with the licensing just as nobody complies with the certification.
There's no need for this. Funding inspectors to respond to [b]actual complaints[/b] from tenants is vastly more efficient than erecting another bureaucratic hurdle.
It's like the moronic fire escape inspection: three hundred bucks to get the guy who most recently repaired the thing to certify--five years later--that the thing is in good shape. The only reason ISD came out is because a neighbor was a rat. Nobody else on the entire street has ever been inspected or cited.
Riiiight...
Because people will NEVER be able to rent out their apartment(s) without a magical license...
This is like claiming that you're going to institute wedding licenses to control people who aren't married from living together.
Exactly
If the government makes a certain activity illegal or too regulated, it will simply go underground. Can't fight the market.
The idea might be crazy but it wont be that hard to enforce.
Every time a police officer goes to a call for a loud party, they can just look up the owner of the property and see if they have a license. Then the owner can be fined, the property can be liened, etc.
Seems to me like just another way for the City/police to fine people for existing crimes/problems.
And yet...
The only people in that scenario who are going to have licenses are the ones you caught because you had to visit the apartment. Also, what's the difference between an apartment and a "living arrangement"? How does the cop know if the loud house party is being held by a renter or the home owner? Sure, for an apartment building that might be easier to figure out, but for a house (and I posit that more "loud parties" or other problems occur in rented houses/partial homes and not apartment buildings)?
People don't get driver's licenses for fear of being pulled over without them. They get it because so much of life is tied to them (proof of age, proof of residence, tax documentation, etc). Plus the penalty for driving without a license is to have your car immediately impounded. Do you plan on impounding the house if someone is renting without a license? And the renter? What happens to them? They had no responsibility in getting a license...but now they're potentially somehow punished?
Yes you are right but....
that is just one example. And I would say most loud party calls happen in apartments, not houses.
When you go to a loud party call, and there is actually a loud party, legally a crime has been comitted (disturbing the peace). Now when you knock on the door, you can actually arrest the person, or you can summons them into court, or you can put them in for a clerks hearing, or you can just ID them and give them a warning, or you can not ID them and have every one leave. Until recently, 99% of the time the party would get broken up and people would be sent on their way. Today, every one has to leave, and the cops will ask who lives at the address. Now apartments have mailboxes, and names will be on them. Houses will have owners, but in college areas, all you have to do is ask for an ID. If they refuse to give you an ID, then you can just arrest them or tell them that you are going to summons the owner into court. That ususally brings out people to identify themselves, especially when all you want to do is document who lives there and give them a warning for first time offenses. I've never had a problem having to find out who lives or owns a house.
And I'm not defending the idea, but if it does go through, renters are basically going to have to check if landlords have "licenses" before they rent from them. I'm not that up to date on renters law, but what would happen if the renter complained so much about a crappy landlord and the city condemmed the place? What happens to the renter then? Does the landlord have to pay for another place for the renter? Would that happen if this rule goes into effect?
People don't get driver's
Really? That seems unlikely, since:
What was your point again?
Uh...
Have you ever been pulled over just to see if you have a license? Are you scared that they'll do so?
My point was that either they are visiting apartments because there's another problem...and then they'll check the license (just like getting pulled over for an illegal turn and then having your car impounded for driving without a license)...
OR, they're going to check apartments randomly (like by the Inspections Dept) and everyone's going to get a license for fear of being caught without one and losing a huge revenue stream from their rental(s).
The latter is very invasive and doesn't do a service the way, say, checking restaurants for victual licenses so nobody eats at a restaurant that hasn't been inspected does.
Have any of you actually
Have any of you actually RENTED an apartment in the last 10 years? Your opinion might change.
Oy I totally can see where she's coming from. I'm not for more regulation, but some landlords in the city are just horrible. Most don't care except that your rent is paid on time. Forget about getting repairs done, its dragging your feet. I won't even talk about some of the 'grandfathered' fire traps that I've seen at places. Many have been owned for years and years and its just income to them now.
I mean I get it, many problems in the 'ruff' neighborhoods are landlords who don't give a crap who they are renting to, as long as the rent checks are coming. They never come by and inspect, they ignore most complaints, and things just snow ball.
I think holding landlords accountable for tenants is a BIG deal. I think much of the riff raff would go away because they wouldn't be able to rent. There are articles after articles of shootings/stabbings/murders/muggins all within the same blocks, and known 'drug dens' in the same locations, so um why havent the landlords kicked these people out? If I was a landlord, and had someone selling out of my rental unit.. byebye to them.
Inspection Services are a joke. Ever try to get one out to look at issues? Good luck on that one. The ONLY time they come is if you make a HUGE stink about it.
The other issue is many owners of property in boston use management companies to manage the property. Its the management company's responsibility to respond to city requests, tickets, deal with maintainece issues, etc etc. I feel sorry for a landlord that hires a management company that completely ignores the city's request (as I know many of them do in the 'ruff' areas of town too), because its the landlord that has to pay, not the management company.
I had an issue in Chelsea (yea yea not boston) with a neighbor dropping trash off the third floor deck and trying to get it into trash cans below. Took 10 calls to the city to get them to do something, after the rats, maggots, and skunks had invaded. I finally got sick of dealing with the city, and looked up who owned the property. A 85 year old women in Saugus who had owned the property since 1975, she said she had virtually nothing to do with it anymore and I should call the management company. Repeated calls to the management company got nothing (except a lot of "No Hablar INgles"). We FINALLY got the city to do something, which was fine the owner (we felt bad..) so much that she had no other choice than to sell it to get rid of the issue. (yeh I know, mean, but after months of smelly trash in the backyard we had had enough).
I hear ya cybah
but on the other side, I own some property and have dealt with some nightmare tennants. Some of them have damaged me money, not paid etc, and have cost me a lot of money.
And then there is the guy who complains about everything. I own a three family that is pretty old, but it is in good shape and I have a professional inspector check it every two years. The rent is really low, because I like the tennants, and 2 of them know they are getting a deal. The other one moved in and complains about every thing. I basically tell the guy that I have no problem putting in 100K tomorrow and charging market rate for the apt. That usually shuts him up for a while.
The other one moved in and
You stay classy, Nicely-Nicely.
What does that have to do with class?
I rent all three apts at under market rate because I like the tennants and they wouldn't be able to afford the market rate. We have a good relationship and I don't think the other guy understands the deal he is getting (the rent has been the same for about 7 years now.)
What is it that your tenant
What does your tenant complain about? Superficial things? Paint color? Age of kitchen cabinets? Stuff like that?
Actually
Its mostly about the other neighbors. But sometimes its about the tandem parking and getting tickets on the street when the neighbor forgets to pull his car in, or once he wanted to paint over the wood trim and I wouldn't let him. And then he wanted to have a gas grill on the back porch and I told him he couldn't have one and he whined about how everyone else in the neigborhood had one, and once he complained that the dryer was broken and he wanted me to fix it. I told him that the dryer was actually owned by him and the previous tennant, and that the electricty and water was actually being paid and shared by the other two tennants, and he failed to understand it. (I ended up buying a washing machine and dryer for all three once I had the electric done over)
Oh, and its a 2-3 bedroom, and he was the 3rd roomate found on Craigslits by the other 2. When the other 2 moved out, he thought he should have only been responsible for 1/3 of the rent, and I told him thats fine, but if I rented it out, I would advertise for a 3 bedroom and if someone wanted to pay the full amount, they would get the entire place.
He is just a pain in the arse thats all.
Bleh
I'm all for the city going after slumlords, but what's really needed is a zero tolerance, one strike you're out rule when it comes to section 8 vouchers. I'm sure everyone here is tired of lazy, good for nothing bums who ride $10k bikes, sell drugs in our neighborhoods, destroy our property values, get arrested every week yet somehow manage to live rent-free their whole life. Let them know they'll get their (and their family) lazy asses tossed in the street if they ever get arrested, and I guarantee they'll become model citizens overnight.
Because institutionalization worked so well?
So, we'll put people with disabilities back into state hospitals if they get arrested once and they have a Section 8 voucher?
And this is why the Sec 8
And this is why the Sec 8 system is broken. Both good and bad people are getting these.
And I'd like to think a zero tolerance policy would work. The folks who really need the help won't cause problems, and the ones that do.. byebye
Maybe some sort of three strikes rule or hearings or something, something to hold the people who abuse Section 8 accountable for their actions.
It wouldn't though
A lot of the people with Section 8 are in the various programs for people with disabilities. They don't need to be in secure facilities because they aren't harming anyone most of the time, but a lot of these folks periodically get arrested when their illness is cycling.
Are you serious with that comment?
No really, you're not serious with that comment, are you?
You mean, gangbanging and
You mean, gangbanging and drug dealing are related to some mysterious illness? Oh wow, who would have thought...
Bad behavior is bad behavior
Person 'A' acts badly because he's a boorish, inconsiderate lowlife. Person 'B' acts badly because "his illness is cycling."
From the perspective of the neighbors, there's absolutely no difference between person A and person B, and the Section 8 program should not be inflicting either of them on a their neighbors.
"Bad Behavior is Bad Behavior"
Okay, I agree with that concept up to a point. If person "A" acts badly because s/he's a low-life scumbag, who regularly endangers their neighbors through drug-dealing and other crimes, or who constantly disturbs other tenants, that's one thing--evict them immediately for criminal behavior, or give a tenant who constantly disturbs his/her neighbors (by blasting their stereo at all hours of the night, etc.,) a stern warning about the possibility of being evicted if s/he continues.
If, on the other hand, a person has an illness that causes him/her to act out in really crazy ways that're unacceptable to neighbors, allowances/accommodations should be made; S/he should be urged to get a note from their doctor/therapist to give the landlord/landlady that they're renting from, and make the landlord aware that they're taking medicine(s) to control their illness, and of any changes/adjustments of medication that're going on. Yet, even though such tenants can't be disciplined in the same way as tenants of a sound mind who act badly, disabled tenants, too, must be made aware if their behavior's unacceptable and to make sure that they take their medication, and notify their landlord/landlady if any changes in the above-mentioned things are going on.
I'll also add that the landlord, as well as the ( mentally disabled) tenant, should make their neighbors aware of their illness, so that they won't be so ready to have such a person evicted if s/he does act out on occasion. Such a tenant is also entitled to protection under the ADA (Americans with Disabilities Act), if I understand correctly.
Still misses the point
Whoa, who's talking about "disciplining" a tenant? This isn't a matter of disciplining anyone, it's a matter of fostering reasonable living conditions. The purpose in evicting a bad tenant is not to punish the tenant, it's to restore a reasonable quality of life for the neighbors.
From the neighbors' perspective, there is absolutely no difference between a person who has domestic fights at 3:00 AM, who throws garbage out the windows, and who urinates in common spaces because of poorly managed mental illness and one who does the same things but doesn't happen to have a DSM-IV diagnosis code on to his medical record.
As a landlord, how does the presence or absence of a note from the tenant's doctor help me as I'm disinfecting the hallway or patching the walls kicked in by my tenant? As a neighbor, how does a note from the doctor help me get a good night's sleep or protect my children from being spat upon?
Well.....
This:
I understand, Can't log in (not verified).
However, as at least some posters have pointed out on other threads, the vast majority of mentally disabled people are not violent people who act out by assaulting their neighbors, spitting on the neighbors' kids, by vandalizing property, or by kicking walls in, and therefore don't need to institutionalized or anything like that. If there are such people, and they can't be stablized through daily medication, then they really don't belong in regular housing with regular people, but, again, they're not the majority--not by a long shot.
However, the non-violent majority of people with mental disabilities are entitled to protection by the
ADA (Americans with disabilities Act), and even most of the somewhat rougher ones can be stablized by medication. I think that the landlord should know about a tenant who takes medication to stablize him or her, and not be condemned to live out on the streets, under bridges, or in a human warehouse for the rest of his or her life.
So much the better
... that person B should be homeless and ill too?
You're missing my point, SwirlyGrrl,
and taking what I've just said way, way out of context. Person B is entitled to protection under the ADA act, but should also be made aware that bad behavior is not acceptable and s/he should be sure to take their medication to stablize them and keep the unacceptable behavior under wraps. If such a person has protection under the ADA and takes their medication faithfully, their landlord/landlady won't be so ready to evict them.
Unless you're being snarky, SwirlyGrrl, this:
is totally missing my point.
Was that a trick question?
Umm... yes, if a person damages my property, disturbs my neighbors, and makes violent threats, I'd much rather see him living under a bridge than under the same roof as me and my family. Is that even up for debate?
Some food for thought
http://www.theatlantic.com/magazine/archive/2008/0...
No, we toss the drug dealers
No, we toss the drug dealers and gun-toting ganbangers and their families in the street and take away their vouchers if they ever get arrested for anything drug or gun related, that will teach the other moochers to behave like normal human beings. Better yet, why don't you bleeding-heart liberals house them in your cozy beacon hill pads if you love them so much? That way, you kill two birds with one stone - the city saves tons of money, and you integrate a neighborhood that's just too damn white.
Almost
You can't kick them out for being arrested. They have to be convicted first.
I believe currently in affordable housing, if drugs are found in the unit, the entire household gets kicked out. Including Grandma on disability who had no idea that her grandkid was holding.
Right, as if they are dumb
Right, as if they are dumb enough to keep their stash at home. The city should take away the vouchers for illegal firearm possession or drug dealing, period - regardless of where the drugs or guns were found. And maybe grandma on disability will finally start paying attention to what the grandkids are doing if she knows their idiotic behavior can get her kicked out. Otherwise, we'll just see more of the "i dont know nuttin, he dont do nuttin, why you bother us for nuttin" bullcrap.
Cry me a river, Maureen
Maureen Feeney never cared about poorly maintained, absentee-owned properties when they were outside her district. She opposed anything that would hold owners responsible for the condition of the building. She would divert the conversation into blather about "I'm concerned about homeowners and small landlords...." Who gives a damn whether it is a small landlord or a big one, the divide is between the good ones and the bad ones. And this homeowner is pretty tired of the deteriorating dumps with illegal apartments that drag the neighborhood down.
There are PLENTY of laws that ISD can enforce. The building division actually has the RIGHT to enter a home to do an inspection. For example, if someone adds an apartment without permits, the city has a legal right to enter to inspect. They can go to court to enforce it if denied entry.
But they do not. If they do, they never push it to the point where there is a court order, and the police enforce it. When an owner is cited for a building violation, it just gets delayed in court, the city usually does not do the follow-up inspections, and the complaint is dropped.
It was this way under Kevin White, Ray Flynn and now Tom Menino. It ain't gonna change.
Regarding noise, there is a city noise ordinance that relies on decibel levels. The police are supposed to enforce it.
great news
This is a great idea! I lived in Eastie all my life and can say regarding rental property, the free market doesn't work. We have these outside profiteers coming in buying up property and bleeding the profits from it at the cost of life long resident / neighbors. This doesn't happen in their suburbian neighborhood because of the strong housing regulations they have.
Wrong
Brookline has plenty of empty storefronts if you drive from Comm Ave. down Harvard St. into the village. You don't make money unless you have someone paying you rent.