|
|
Post by Swimmy on Feb 4, 2008 8:06:52 GMT -5
|
|
|
|
Post by frankcor on Feb 4, 2008 20:42:12 GMT -5
Yes, it sure looks like something totally different than the law in Rome. The New Hartford proposal looks to use the courts to pressure the landlord to evict the tenants. Rome's law uses codes enforcement and the threat of revoking the certificate of occupancy and doesn't rely on the courts at all.
From what is contained in the article, I'd be willing to bet this proposal will go back to the drawing board. It offers no standard for what will trigger the enforcement of the law and requesting an injunction. In Rome, the trigger is very specific -- if illegal activity occurs more than once in a 1-year period at an address, a hearing is held and the landlord is given an opportunity to show cause why the property should not be shut down. The burden is placed on the landlord, not the courts like in the New Hartford proposal, to alleviate the situation.
|
|
|
|
Post by Swimmy on Feb 5, 2008 7:31:51 GMT -5
You don't know New Hartford very well, do you. lol.
|
|
|
|
Post by frankcor on Feb 5, 2008 16:11:24 GMT -5
Oh yeah. I forgot.
|
|
