Biddeford’s recent proposal to instate a “disorderly housing” ordinance seems a good idea at first glance, as it could help the city crack down on the derelict buildings and rowdy tenants that turn average neighborhoods into “bad neighborhoods.”
However, we would caution against this approach because of the impact it will have on landlords and tenants, and because it is not the right approach to successfully improving the downtown residential area.
Current city building codes and laws governing public behavior are already in place, and whenever additional levels of government oversight are proposed, we must be cautious.
The ordinance, which has yet to be approved, would allow the city to penalize owners of multi-family buildings if their tenants take part in disorderly behavior too often or the building becomes an eyesore. Fines of up to $1,000 are proposed, and the owner would have to enter into a remediation process with the city to fix the problems at the site.
We applaud the vision of the city and the group of local landlords and others who are promoting this ordinance as a way to improve the downtown, but believe that the city would be best served by enforcing its current ordinances and laws.
There is no ordinance in place to require single-family home owners to keep their properties presentable, so long as they are up to code, and no ordinance that requires them to avoid disorderly activity. Why? Because laws are already in place to deal with these issues. Owners of multi-family buildings should not be subjected to a different standard.
The city can’t force a property owner to repaint or restore his or her building if they simply don’t have the cash. The average property owner cannot take advantage of such boons as state and federal grants or historic district tax credits, and sometimes improvements like a new porch or siding are simply out of reach unless the rents are raised ”“ and few can afford that right now.
As well, landlords should not be penalized for their tenants’ behaviors. If the city is willing to work with them to improve the properties, it should encourage landlords to meet with city officials and discuss their options. The legal terms of eviction can be discussed as well, to help clear the area of the worst offenders if landlords can find new tenants. Fines, however, should not be threatened.
State law already allows landlords to evict tenants according to the terms of their lease, which should include provisions about destruction of property and nuisance behavior. Those without a lease are even easier to evict if they have been a nuisance to neighbors. In extreme circumstances of multiple complaints at a single building where the landlord has not attempted eviction of disorderly tenants, it would seem appropriate for the city to take action with the landlord, but the fine still seems counterproductive in this case and the laws are already in place to allow the city to address the problem.
And if Biddeford wants to clean up its downtown as far as disorderly conduct goes, it’s already going about it the only way that really works: Community building. It’s a slow process, but it’s the only way that people learn to have enough pride in their neighborhood and in themselves to stop taking part in destructive and obnoxious behaviors that create a “bad neighborhood.”
Community Development Coordinator Linda Hardacker, the Heart of Biddeford and others have already invested a lot of time and money in some of Biddeford’s low rent areas, from creating parks to hosting community celebrations and cleanups. It is these types of events that encourage people to make their neighborhoods better, and it’s up to the police and code enforcement to make sure the rest of the picture falls into place.
Fining landlords is not going to improve the behavior of rowdy renters. Whatever efforts are made to improve the downtown will always be thwarted by those who have no respect for their community, unless the city finds success with a campaign to change those people’s outlook.
Disorderly behavior is a symptom of people who have no pride in their community and have not taken ownership of it. An ordinance that would force them out is not going to change that behavior ”“ only outreach and involvement can do that.
Comments are not available on this story.
Send questions/comments to the editors.
