Letters to the Editor: Rentals 11.19.15

A Dangerous Law

Amagansett

November 16, 2015

Dear David,

If more people actually read the proposed rental registry law, even fewer people would support it.

Here’s an example of how, under the proposed law, you can be fined and incarcerated. It can start with this generous offer to friends, “Why don’t you use our place in East Hampton for the weekend?”

Guess what? Under the proposed law the occupancy of a single-family residence by anyone other than the owner and his family presumes that the house is being used as a rental property. As such, the property requires a rental registration number. The punishment for not having a registration number, or occupying a house without one, can be as much as $15,000 and/or jail time of up to six months. Both the owner and his friends have violated the law. Welcome to East Hampton.

It’s all there, in black and white, in the proposed law.

What’s more, the only way to avoid conviction? Prove that no consideration was exchanged between the owner and his friends.

But how do you do that? How does one prove a negative? You can’t prove something that hasn’t happened. The law is crafted to presume guilt as fact until proof of innocence, which in this case is impossible to provide.

This is a dangerous law. It tramples a sacred American principle, that we are innocent until proven guilty. For the life of me I can’t see how any rational American citizen could support this law, or, for that matter, have the brazenness to even draft it.

Moreover, simply from a practical point of view, how can the town process all the applications in a timely manner? The 2016 rental season has already started. Has the town had an economic analysis performed as to the costs of administering the law, much less its impact upon our economy? Is there sufficient capability to even manage the paperwork the law requires? Looks to me like whatever money the law might raise is going to have to go directly toward the administration of it. This law leads to bigger government without even addressing or offering a solution to the core issues.

But let’s put all this aside.

I have a solution to the debate that I would like to propose to both proponents and opponents of a rental registry, and to the town board. It is not complicated, easily enacted, and few could argue against it. Simply require a permit if you rent your house out, just like a shellfishing permit, dump sticker, beach-driving, or parking permit. A rental permit cannot be any more difficult or demanding to obtain. Pick one up in five minutes at the town clerk’s office. If you rent your house without a permit, you risk a fine. Simple as that.

The town, in turn, promises to commit revenues from the issuance of rental permits to the Office of Public Safety to specifically help unearth code violations involving overcrowding and share houses. Nothing more needs to be done. All the laws we need are already on the books. I’m pretty confident that most people believe the ability to enforce those laws deserves to be adequately funded, and would willingly obtain a permit. And not because without one you could go to jail, but because it is the civic-minded thing to do.

Good laws should unite the people, not divide them. The proposed rental registry law is a harmful one that divides the people, creates new classes of violations and violators, criminalizes people, leads to bigger government, undermines our rights, and ends up doing absolutely nothing to solve anything. So scrap it.

Let’s go with a rental permit instead. We don’t need any more laws. Especially flawed ones like this.

And to those who are cheering behind the banner of the proposed law, you may just want to double check that surrendering your right to the presumption of innocence is an outcome you actually support.

Hopefully there will be a good turnout at tonight’s public hearing. It’s the last chance to voice an opinion.

JOSEPH M. KAZICKAS

The Domino Effect

Westbury

November 9, 2015

Dear Editor,

At a public hearing on a proposed rental registry law held in 2014, I urged the town board to conduct a thorough economic study before consideration of a rental registry law. 

I don’t believe that our town government has yet considered the domino effect on the income levels of a substantially significant number of East Hampton residents, whether it be that they are renting their homes to the tourism industry or working in service businesses that depend on tourism.

I read the East Hampton Town community housing opportunity fund implementation plan to obtain statistical information. This East Hampton Town report was published on March 11. I also did an online search of available rentals in East Hampton Town.

Although there is likely to be some overlap in these numbers, of the available rentals I found online, there are over 6,000 rental listings offered by real estate brokerage firms, and over 5,000 rental listings offered by homeowner-managed sources. 

I reviewed the number of ordinance enforcement cases on the East Hampton Town report from March 2015. There are an estimated 11,000 rental listings online for East Hampton Town. The average number of housing violation cases is 141 per year. The average building code violations are 47 per year. Statistically, that is less than a 1-percent problem.

I am not saying it is not a problem — no one wants to live next door to an obnoxious share house — but maybe the town board is trying to kill an ant with a steamroller. The former town attorney Patrick Gunn said in 2013 that a rental registry would not solve housing code violations nor give town officials the clout they hoped for when the idea was first broached.

Our government leaders have not given careful enough consideration to the number of people in this community who depend on renting their properties for some amount of time every year, and how dependent our community is on this income stream. Should a rental registry law be passed, a drop in that rental income of even 20 percent could mean the difference in whether or not people in our community can pay medical bills, mortgages, property taxes, college educations, and more.

Second, a rental registry law will cause many landlords who rent a home year round at an affordable price to young people and working families to just call it quits. Once these landlords add in the risk of code enforcement inspections, the threat of tens of thousands of dollars in fines, and the possibility of jail time, why would they want to continue?

Maybe it’s time, as our county legislator and Montauk property owner Jay Schneiderman suggested for Hampton Bays, that we consider allowing homeowners to offer vacation rentals to tourists of seven days or longer. Our year-round community is even more dependent on tourism dollars than it was 100 years ago. In the 2010 census, the number of seasonally used homes in East Hampton passed the 60-percent mark, and it is growing.

I don’t believe our town government has considered the demographics of those who depend on this rental income. According to the March East Hampton Town report, the population aged 45 and over represents almost 50 percent of the total population. This town is aging in place.

There will be no sudden availability of jobs in East Hampton to those who will be losing some of their income stream because of the passing of a rental registry law. We have no new industry. There is no significant new business here. Reports describe homeowners who are income-constrained and greatly burdened by housing costs, more so than in most other areas of the East End and Suffolk County. 

The average home price in East Hampton Town has risen dramatically since 1999, and it has become the most expensive of any East End township. Median home prices here have increased 300 percent since 1999. People in this community are struggling to stay here and stay self-sufficient.

The proposed rental registry, which punishes all for the violations of the few, is not an acceptable solution.

E. DOOLEY

Presumptive Evidence

South Orange, N.J.

November 12, 2015 

To the Editor, 

Frank Riina, who started the petition for a rental registry, has asked: What is the difference between those who support the rental registry and those who do not? Then he goes on to answer his own question by defining supporters as “grassroots” — concerned about the well-being of all individuals, just as long as they are those “who make their home in East Hampton.” 

Is this not provincialism at its finest? It is we versus them, as defined by whether you agree with Mr. Riina or not. 

I welcome a debate with him as to who is entitled to use the beach, pick the apples, or breathe the air in East Hampton. Is it only reserved for those who make this place their home, or is it an inalienable divine right that we all enjoy as fellow beings? 

According to Mr. Riina, if you do not make your home in East Hampton, your voice should not count. He assumes you must be a business, an outsider, or a large real estate concern, and somehow, in his view, any one of those categories is something to be disdained. He says there is a stark difference between those who support the rental registry and those who do not. He says he speaks “clearly” of realities and the other side uses “fear tactics, threats of lawsuits, and exaggerations.” He also claims to be concerned about the welfare of “misguided real estate agents . . . who will find their commissions decreasing as Airbnb gains greater dominance in the rental market.”

As to all, his position is totally unsupported by truth or evidence, nor does he cite a single example.

Mr. Riina, I dispute your definitions and your purported reality, and further, I am not anonymous. If you want to put labels on me, then I ask: Wasn’t it one of your supporters who was caught on tape stealing political signs and interfering with constitutional rights of free speech? Should I hold you accountable for her actions, since she is on your side? After all, it was you who drew the line in the sand: those who support versus those who do not. Based on your defiition, one would be justified in labeling you a thief, just as you label me as a greedy fear-monger, but that would be absurd, wouldn’t it?

In 1787, our founding fathers were literally locked up for almost four months in Constitution Hall in sweltering heat creating a document that guides us to this day. Two years later they produced the Bill of Rights. Mr. Riina, they would roll over in their graves and spit fire if they read your letter, especially the part that says “Presumptive evidence is not presumptive guilt. Presumptive evidence is a set criteria to be used by code enforcement to determine that a property is most likely being used as rental property.” 

Mr. Riina, you have totally trivialized our Constitution by defining the right against self-incrimination as “a set of criteria to be used by code enforcement.” What you miss is this: Presumptive evidence is not permitted to be extracted by force from the accused. Do you not understand the reasoning for this? In the old European world our founders came from, innocent people could be tortured until they “confessed” to their guilt. We who love and understand the Constitution recognize this concept is sacrosanct. This is why we have lawyers defending people, even though we are certain they are guilty. We are maintaining the foundation of our principles. The burden is on the government to prove guilt, not on the accused to bear witness.

ELAINE HARRIS 

Revised Ordinance

Amagansett

November 14, 2015

David:

Before I address the upcoming topic, the unanimously town board-proposed rental registration ordinance, I would like to state my pleasure in the results of the recent election. The message, besides conveying a clear endorsement of the board’s record, also made clear that the electorate could not be purchased, lied to, or “signed” mercilessly. No candidate should be elected without a clear platform. Being “against” is not enough.

A demonstration of democracy at work can be found by looking at the history of the rental registry law presented earlier this year. Despite the fact that the essential ingredients of that proposed ordinance had been successfully implemented in various towns similar to ours, including Southampton, it was clear that the proposal was unacceptable to us — “too invasive,” “too complicated,” etc. So tonight at 7, after a lot of work and tradeoffs, a severely trimmed-down ordinance will be presented for discussion at the American Legion Hall in Amagansett. 

Examples of the revised law are:

1. The existing certificate of occupancy is okay — not requiring an update.

2. A statement of compliance with safety issues (smoke alarms, pool safety, etc., by the landlord is adequate, with no on-site inspection.

3. A simple two-page document replaces the previous ordinance.

A comparison of the previous rental registry law and the current one shows that the voice of the people was heard. The long-term good of our town, not the short-term impact of greed, has to be our goal. 

Just to end this letter on a lighter note, I was discussing the new rental ordinance with a friend at the post office the other day, and though for the most part he was happy with the changes, he was upset with the $125 fee per year. After I reminded him that he rented his house for August this year for $28,000, he said, “Yeah, it’s not the $125, it’s the principle of the thing.”

Let’s demonstrate a real principle. Attend meetings, participate, lobby for revisions that are sensible, and get a law on the books by the spring to start curbing the decline of life in East Hampton.

IRVING HIRSCHBERG

An Excessive Burden

Springs

November 14, 2015

Dear Editor:

After my parents died, my sisters and I decided to rent their home rather than sell the property. It is where we grew up, a place we love and sometimes use for our own families’ enjoyment. It is a necessity for us to obtain rental income in order to maintain the property and pay property taxes.

In theory I am not against the town making an effort to determine which properties are rentals and to establish some oversight to the known problem of over-occupancy. However, having read the proposed legislation, I am distressed to find that the majority of the proposal inflicts extra expense and work on all landlords, while also establishing some measures that are quite reasonable, aimed at the minority that abuse the system. Namely, the section numbered 199-1-5 — “Presumptive evidence of multifamily occupancy” — is very much needed and should definitely be put in place. 

The remainder of the proposal, however, creates an onerous burden for all of us law-abiding citizens who are just trying to make ends meet while maintaining our properties in East Hampton.

As was stated at the public hearing last year, more effort needs to be put into enforcement of existing laws rather than establishing new regulations. If the town goes forward with the proposed regulations in full, it will need extra personnel to keep up with the tremendous paperwork (electronic or not) that these regulations will require. Why not save that money and put it into enforcement of existing regulations instead?

This reeks of an attempt by the town to add money to the town coffers. (I am still very angry about the town eliminating leaf collection, to “save money” while putting the burden of significant expense on all Springs residents, many who are barely getting by.) Enough is enough! I’d like them to put more energy into serving the people of your town instead of squeezing every last penny out of them.

The town board has done some very good things (trying to address the airport problems, trying to address the deer problem, etc.), and I thank them and respect them for that. However, this legislation, as written, puts an excessive burden on its law-abiding citizens and does little to stop those that abuse the system (and will likely not register their houses). It would be a terrible shame to see the proposed legislation passed.

SUSAN JEWETT