Calls recent rental legislation 'discriminatory' and 'unfair'
At a time when the American public generally is becoming concerned
with the efforts of all levels of government to interject itself into the affairs of its citizens and the preponderance of unnecessary regulations, it would seem that our political representatives should take note and cease passing the kind of legislation referenced in the July 20 Twinsburg Bulletin, "Rezoning issues approved for fall ballot."
Certain aspects of this legislation, passed 4-3 July 12, are patently unfair. Why would this ordinance apply only to owners of one to three rental units and not all rental units in the community?
This is obviously discriminatory.
When similar legislation was proposed in 2008 (Ordinance 38) and included all rental units, attorneys of the larger rental companies were in attendance and indicated their displeasure.
Possibly this is the reason why multi-family rentals were not included in this latest legislation. More importantly, wouldn't those, probably local citizens, with a smaller number of units, be more likely to care for a rental property?
It should be noted that there is a plethora of laws currently on the books regarding relations between renters and landlords. For example, with regard to state law, if a renter has a complaint against a landlord, the renter has the right to place rent in an escrow account pending resolution of the complaint.
Even in the case of federal law, the renter is protected via Consumer Product Safety Commission and the U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development. Section 8 rental requires a thorough inspection of the property.
It would appear that the latest legislation merely provides for more government expansion and intrusion via unnecessary regulation rather than adding anything to the health, safety and welfare of the community.
William E. Cornell, Twinsburg