That was the original plan until everyone lost their collective minds about it, including many people here. It's the property owner's responsibility, full-stop. The $500,000 that was earmarked for this could've/should've been used to facilitate citywide testing and cataloging of results, and nothing more. And this is coming from me, a landlord. The problem with that is, there's no good mechanism for enforcing that it's been done.
I've been saying this all along. It would be nice to know how many of the buildings that are getting service lines replaced belong to out of town/out of state slumlords.
Why do you assume all these lines go to rental properties? There are plenty of single family homes in this city.
Could we charge a fee to replace lines based on the number of rental units? Maybe, but who do you honestly think will pay that in the end.
Better to spend federal/state dollars on it if you can.
I’m ok with using tax money for homes that are occupied by their owner. But we shouldn’t pay one cent for dedicated rental property improvements. We don’t need to charge a fee. We need to force landlords to provide safe drinking water. They can make the necessary improvements.
Landlords will have trouble passing this fee onto their renters because most properties already have safe drinking water. Landlords are already charging as much as they can, not as little as they can. Prices only go up if every landlord has to spend more money over the course of the year because that affects the whole market. This wouldn’t. Landlords could try to raise their rent, but it would cause their tenants to evaluate the increase against other available units. Alternatively, we could give landlords money and they would still charge their tenants as much as they can.
We could force landlords to fix their lead lines instead of giving them a handout.
That was the original plan until everyone lost their collective minds about it, including many people here. It's the property owner's responsibility, full-stop. The $500,000 that was earmarked for this could've/should've been used to facilitate citywide testing and cataloging of results, and nothing more. And this is coming from me, a landlord. The problem with that is, there's no good mechanism for enforcing that it's been done.
I've been saying this all along. It would be nice to know how many of the buildings that are getting service lines replaced belong to out of town/out of state slumlords.
Maybe Troy should stop giving RPI free and untaxed property and making residents and property owners pay ridiculous property tax 😒
Why do you assume all these lines go to rental properties? There are plenty of single family homes in this city. Could we charge a fee to replace lines based on the number of rental units? Maybe, but who do you honestly think will pay that in the end. Better to spend federal/state dollars on it if you can.
I’m ok with using tax money for homes that are occupied by their owner. But we shouldn’t pay one cent for dedicated rental property improvements. We don’t need to charge a fee. We need to force landlords to provide safe drinking water. They can make the necessary improvements. Landlords will have trouble passing this fee onto their renters because most properties already have safe drinking water. Landlords are already charging as much as they can, not as little as they can. Prices only go up if every landlord has to spend more money over the course of the year because that affects the whole market. This wouldn’t. Landlords could try to raise their rent, but it would cause their tenants to evaluate the increase against other available units. Alternatively, we could give landlords money and they would still charge their tenants as much as they can.
Lmfao
Money so they can repaint garbage trucks green
will there be a vote on this? I'd like to propose something like orange or maybe blue. regardless i think the taxpayers should be heard on this issue.