Although the Certificate of Occupancy (CO) ordinance was not scheduled for debate until the report of the Community Development Committee, debate began in earnest during the public comments portion of the Henderson City Council’s regular meeting last night.
During the opening remarks at the beginning of the meeting, Henderson Mayor Clem Seifert asked Community Development Committee chair Garry Daeke if the CO item on the agenda would be open to public comments. It was the consensus of Daeke and the Council that public comments would not be heard.
Seifert indicated to the audience that to speak on the CO, they would have to sign the list for public comments. At that point, Henderson attorney Michael Satterwhite passed the sign-up sheet around to various clients in the audience.
At the beginning of the public comment part of the meeting, Satterwhite, first on the list, asked that he be deferred until the end of the end of the list, telling Seifert that the five clients who had signed to speak would defer their time to him.
Satterwhite noted that he represents 36 clients.
“That’s something that hasn’t come up before,” Seifert said.
Satterwhite countered that he had heard Seifert say that “this is your meeting”.
Although Daeke stated that he would love to hear the individuals who had signed up to speak, it was decided to proceed with Satterwhite’s plan.
Henderson landlord Henry Falkner commented that during a trip to the gun store to have his shotgun fixed he observed three men he knows to be living in an “unoccupied” house upgrading a 9mm handgun and ordering magazines for an AK 47 rifle. He said he was scared because he knows the house “will never be looked into”. He said he was scared for code inspectors if the CO passes.
Falkner then yielded the balance of his time to Satterwhite.
Henderson resident Barbara Richards spoke to the Council in favor of the ordinance. She said that having decent, affordable housing was needed to attract corporations and citizens.
Richards said that IBM would not move 300 jobs here because of the housing situation.
The Henderson resident said that complaint-driven code enforcement does not work with those in a low-wealth situation because of fears of landlord reprisals.
“I’m tired of Vance County being a low-wealth county,” Richards said.
Richards compared Vance County, which she said spends 30% of its budget on social services to Wake County, which she claimed spends 50% of its budget on schools.
Stating that the only growth she has seen is in convenience stores and fast food, she asked where the vision of previous City Councils was.
“How much fried chicken can Vance County eat?” she asked Council members.
Richards said that vision had built the RTP and that the land was now worth billions.
“Where is our vision?” she asked.
She concluded her presentation by waving a copy of Newsweek where an article appeared associating Henderson with the AIDS epidemic.
After four more of Satterwhite’s clients yielded their time, Satterwhite began his remarks by stating that the purpose of Minimum Housing and the CO was to protect the health, safety, and welfare of citizens. He said that the Council “got lost” on the purpose because it did not realize it could enforce Minimum Housing on its own initiative.
The landlords’ attorney said that if the City had known that a department head or code compliance officer could enforce Minimum Housing that there might not have been a CO.
After distributing a copy of a confidential letter from City Attorney John Zollicoffer, an article about lawsuit against Rocky Mount due to its inspection process, and a copy of the Amendments to the Constitution of the United States, Satterwhite stated that the CO brought up issues of constitutionality.
He noted that Raleigh had done away with its CO and enforced its city code.
Satterwhite argued that owners are renting to adults who should be able to make sure they are getting what they pay for.
He asked it the City was ready to commit the resources that enforcing the CO would take.
Noting that the City could not take action against a tenant violating the Minimum Housing code, Satterwhite gave Council members a copy of a form to tell the City when a tenant violation has taken place.
Satterwhite said that the City should prosecute tenant violators of the minimum housing code and recover the costs in civil court.
Arguing that the Community Development Committee was coming up with more rules to address the problem, Satterwhite told members that they should enforce the existing rules.
The landlords’ representative said that there is a difference between inspecting a business and a home because of the Fourth Amendment. He said that the CO subjects “those least able to protect themselves” to inspections every three years. He went on to say that rather than protecting the “little man”, the “little man” has no rights under the CO.
Satterwhite also argued that the CO violates the Fifth Amendment (illegal search and seizure), the Eighth Amendment (excessive fines), and the Fourteenth Amendment (due process rights).
He also argued that the CO violates state law and the City’s contract with Vance County to have the County conduct inspections.
Satterwhite claimed that municipalities that have COs are expecting to go to court over them.
The attorney noted that the Community Development Committee had not reached consensus on a recommendation to the full Council.
Lastly, he said that the City has no “moral authority” because of the way it has “stewarded” its own property. To emphasize his point, he distributed pictures of the Armory and the former library on Rose Avenue.
.jpg)
A picture submitted by Satterwhite illustrating the deterioration of the Armory
.jpg)
A picture submitted by Satterwhite illustrating the deterioration of the old library on Rose Avenue
City Manager Jerry Moss pointed out later in the meeting that it is the County that is responsible for maintenance of the old library.
“I would suggest you have formed the wrong conclusion,” Satterwhite said. He asked the Council to vote against the ordinance “at this time”.
During the report of the Community Development Committee, Daeke told members that his committee had met twice since the last Council meeting. He said that no changes had been made during the first meeting and that only four “minor” changes had been made at the second meeting.
Those four changes involved the renaming of the person doing the inspection to “Compliance Inspector”, a change from a two-year certificate of occupancy to a three-year certificate, an enactment date changed from October 1, 2007 to April 1, 2008, and the removal of a provision that would require landlords to relocate tenants if the dwelling does not pass inspection in 30 days, a section that Daeke said was unenforceable.
Daeke noted that there was no recommendation from his committee.
The other members of the committee are Council members Lonnie Davis and Mary Emma Evans.
Council member Elissa Yount introduced the ordinance. Council member Bobby Gupton seconded the motion.
There was no discussion.
The result of the vote was five to three with Council members Bernard Alston, Davis, and Evans casting the dissenting votes.
Zollicoffer interpreted the results for the Council, reminding them that since vote to enact the ordinance did not have a two-thirds majority that it must be voted on again at the next Council meeting.
On the next vote, the measure would need only a simple majority to win.
After the vote, Daeke said that he appreciated the work done by all involved. He noted that the proposed ordinance has “divided the Council and community”. He asked forgiveness for the division, stating that it was not the intention.
Daeke said that people had called him asking him not “to do it”. He said that tenants are concerned about “invasion”.
“Do you do what you think is best or what your constituency wants?” Daeke asked rhetorically.
Daeke announced his intention to hold a forum next week, citing a need to hear from tenants.
Evans stated that she thought she would be upset at the vote, but said that she was not because she has “gone through this kind of stuff all [her] life”.
“I feel like I’m back in Egypt,” Evans said.
Evans said the only way to “tolerate this Council” was to believe that they think they are doing the right thing.
Harper said that she resented the implication that the Council is not trying to do the right thing. She said that unsafe homes are unsafe for everyone around them. She added that she was insulted by the speakers and thought that Zollicoffer was insulted as well because of the claim that the CO is unconstitutional.
Noting that landlords have said that they can inspect at any time, Harper asked, “Well, what’s the problem?”
“Politics has nothing to do with my decision,” Harper said.