Rental inspection code on hold – other legal enforcement options on table

The Mt. Vernon Apartments at 122 S. Royal Ave. – unflattering descriptions from both inside and out. Photos/Roger Bianchini

Despite hearing horror stories from tenants of some rental properties during a September 25 public hearing, the Front Royal Town Council tabled a decision of imposition of a property maintenance code.  However, council appeared to put the ball in legal staff’s hands to explore other, immediate ways of dealing with the kind of living-situation abuses described as the town government attempts to retool the language and parameters of a new ordinance.

In fact, it was one of several landlords or property managers who spoke at the public hearing who broached the idea of prosecuting what Mayor Hollis Tharpe has delicately described as “slumlords” during past discussion of the code change under criminal public nuisance statutes.  David Silek suggested the kind of conditions described by some tenants could be viewed as a public nuisance due to repeated complaints called into public authorities.

Public health violations were also cited as a potential legal means of calling neglectful landlords to task as the Town attempts to fashion a code that will not put undue financial burdens on responsible landlords or let abusive landlords in some parts of town escape oversight and prosecution under a new code.

“While well-intended, if passed as is I will challenge you in circuit court the day after it is approved,” Silek, who is also an attorney, told council.

Attorney David Silek, whose family owns rental properties in town, suggested a re-write and other legal means to seek immediate redress against offending landlords.

The draft code creates a “rental inspection district” in midtown Front Royal.  Roughly, that district extends from one block south of Prospect Street at the 300 block of South Royal Avenue to 2^nd Street at Virginia Avenue to the north; and Water Street to the east and Luray Avenue and several nearby alleyways to the west.  Inside the new district the Town could initiate inspections.  And while inspections could also be initiated on a request or complaint basis by tenants throughout town, it has been pointed out during work session discussion that, that may not be an effective policy.  That is because tenants would fear retaliation once their landlord discovers who lodged the complaint against them.

The immediacy of concern was on vivid display at the property maintenance code public hearing.  During that public comment past council candidate and retired public school educator Linda Allen repeated what she has told council at previous work sessions – the code is necessary because for the most part the type of physical neglect of rental properties targeted by the new ordinance is experienced by the community’s most vulnerable citizens.  They are citizens not always in a position to just up and move out of a bad living situation due to the financial constraints of paycheck to paycheck living,” Allen noted.

Holly Givad, left, tries to show council her living conditions at 122 S. Royal Ave. as Theresa Gill explains Givad’s situation.

What Allen described had already been illustrated earlier during the public hearing.  Holly Givad began coughing as she came forward to make her statement in support of the code.  As she struggled to begin, a previous speaker, Theresa Gill, came forward to explain that Givad had wanted to appear despite getting out of the hospital earlier in the day.  Gill said Givad was dealing with respiratory problems – a condition Gill said might have been exacerbated by her living situation.  As Gill spoke for her, Givad showed photos on her cell phone to council of her apartment’s condition.

The owner of the building Givad and several other public hearing speakers’ cited for poor living conditions was identified as Doctor Batouli.  They identified the property as the Mount Vernon Apartments at 122 South Royal Avenue.  Gill described Batouli as “a retired brain surgeon” observing, “It’s not like he needs the money or can’t afford to make repairs.”

An online search indicated a Dr. Batouli as a resident of Great Falls, Virginia.  We are attempting to contact that Dr. Batouli to see if he is owner of the property in question, and for comment on the descriptions of that property if he is.

Six landlords or property managers also spoke during the public hearing.  One, Nancy Heflin, told council she owned property “next to Mr. Batouli’s – and it is a despicable mess” she said.  But Heflin expressed concern that if Batouli’s property is labeled “blighted” or “uninhabitable” would that stigma transfer to her adjacent property.

Most property rental professionals speaking urged council to enact renter protections – but carefully so as not to peripherally add fees or expenses that one observed “will get passed on to the tenants – that’s just the way it works” or put careless parameters in the code – like requiring mid-winter exterior paint jobs as one said had been done during an earlier 1990’s Town attempt to enact a similar code.

William Huck, owner of T&T Frozen Treats in downtown Front Royal said that he too, is a landlord.  Huck told council he cares about his properties and suggested a base question for all the community’s landlords about their properties – “Ask landlords if they’d live there.”

Of the ordinance under consideration, Huck suggested, “It is not a matter of if, but a matter of when you pass this.”

Local downtown businessman William Huck suggested landlords be given the ‘would you live there?’ test on the way to legal protections for renters.

When – and in what form, he might have added.

Following the comments of all the landlords and property managers, Theresa Gill returned to the podium.  Gill noted that while she had been fortunate enough to remove herself from such abusive living conditions as described by some tenants during the public hearing, others could not and remained at the mercy of their landlords.  But while urging council action to protect its renters, Gill agreed that good landlords should not be inadvertently punished for the sins of others.  “I agree you should protect the good landlords – I have one now,” Gill told council.

However she asked council not to let the bad landlords slip through the cracks of any ordinance rewrite designed to protect the good landlords.

And one councilman not very vocal since his appointment this year seemed all in to assure the town government accomplish what Gill and others are asking for.  Former Planning Commission member Chris Morrison warned he was ready to “go Biblical” in support of renter protections.

“A community divided against itself cannot stand,” Morrison began, his emotion apparent.  “It is not right that they continue to plea to us and we say ‘no’.  Something MUST be done! … I have been fighting this for three years – right is right and wrong is wrong!!!”

Not vocal on many issues since his appointment, Councilman Chris Morrison was fired up about action to protect renters in this community.

And while Town Attorney Doug Napier was absent, Assistant Town Attorney George Sonnett was present for the Town’s legal department.

Hey, just a little rewrite that accomplishes all things for all people on all sides, guys. – That’s why you’re making the BIG BUCKS, right?!?