Controversial Rental Regulation Law Adopted By Greenport Village Board

After months of heated debate and cries from the public that the proposed legislation targeted impoverished residents and was unconstitutional, the Greenport Village board voted Monday night to adopt a controversial rental regulation law.

The new rental regulation legislation outlines the rental permit application, terms of permit and renewal, and fees.

Points of contention among members of the public have centered on regulations that state that a rental property shall only be rented by, or leased by, one person or family.

At past public hearings, residents have asked the board what, exactly, defines a family.

Other regulations are laid out, including no more than two bathrooms will be permitted in the basement of a rental.

One point that has proven highly controversial is the section of the law that allow village officials and members of the building department to make inspections; it also authorizes the village to make application for a search warrant if an owner or tenant refuses to allow an inspection.

The law allows for a revocation of a rental permit if an owner is not in compliance.

Another issue that sparked heated debate was the issue of presumptive evidence, which can be used by the village to determine if the unit is being illegally used by more than one family.

The law states that such evidence includes more than one mail box or electric meter, more than one doorway or doorbell, more than one connecting line for cable or antenna/satellite dish, three or more vehicles registered to the dwelling where owners have different surnames; more than three trash receptacles; separate entrance for separate parts of the buildings, partitions or internal doors that bar access between segregated parts of the buildings; two or more kitchens, and separately locked kitchens.

"It shall be presumed that a bedroom is over-occupied if more than two mattresses or sleeping provisions for more than two persons exist in a bedroom," the law states.

At Monday's meeting, a letter from Long Island Housing Services, Inc., raised questions about the section of the law referring to mattresses in a bedroom, stating that it could target the poor or treat the disabled who might need a health aide in the room unfairly.

Penalties for offenses were laid out: For a first violation, an offender would pay between $500 and $1500. A second violation in 18 months would mean fines between $1000 and $2500. And a third violation of the law within 18 months would mean a fine between $1500 and $5000.

At past public hearings, members of the public have said the new law would mean current landlords were already out of compliance; some have said the law would prohibit boarders and make it impossible for a homeowner to rent a room in his own house, or for a struggling individual to rent a single room at a lower amount, rather than a whole apartment, which they might be unable to afford.

Former Greenport Village Mayor David Kapell, at a public hearing in July, said the preamble to that draft of the proposed legislation, which talked about "a proliferation of substandard housing . . .is completely out of touch with village history."

Kapell said in the past, Greenport sported "some of the worst slums in Suffolk County. There's no comparison between the conditions existing now and then."

Of the legislation, he said, "This is an unnecessary act. I don't know who wrote this but it reads like a Fascist manifesto aimed at the low-income and immigrants that populate this community."

Kapell pointed to a section of the proposed code that says a rental can only be occupied, leased or used by an individual or a family.

"What is a traditional family?" Kapell asked. "Who decides? The courts can't even figure it out and we're going to put ourselves in this position? It's preposterous."

The proposed code, he said, excludes seasonal rentals -- the singular reason municipalities have adopted such legislation to tackle illegal summer rentals and share houses.

"Clearly this law is directed at poor people and immigrants that live here year round," Kapell said, adding that the new code would bar non-family roommates.

"What if I have a four or five bedroom house and want to take in a lodger? That's permitted now, but this would exclude it, and make it a criminal offense," Kapell said.

The vote was 3 to 2, with Mayor David Nyce, Trustee Dave Murray, and Trustee Juila Robins voting in favor of the law.

Trustee Mary Bess Phillips and Trustee George Hubbard voted against the measure; Hubbard said he'd listened to one prevailing sentiment voiced by residents that the village should enforce the code currently on the books before adopting a law.

The vote followed concerns by the public on issues such as whether an already overburdened building department could handle enforcing the law. Resident Bill Swiskey asked the board if they were able to commit to enforcing the law.

Nyce said no law is adopted that the village board was not committed to upholding.

Other concerns involved a new committee set up that will handle challenges to the building department and weigh in on issues before bringing the matter to the village board.

"Is  this going to be a diverse committee or a committee of your friends?" lifelong Greenport resident Barry Latney asked. "A lot of lives are at stake here."

Tanya Palmore of the North Fork Housing Alliance questioned whether tenets of the law were constitutional, especially points concerning warrantless searches of rentals, as well as factors used to determine over-occupancy, such as cars outside, number of beds, and cable boxes.

"It's unconstitutional," she said. "This is the equivalent to treating those that rent year-round like prisoners."

Renters, she said, have a right to privacy.

She also asked how the village planned to pay for the oversight of over 400 rentals in the village.

Others said the law should provide provisions for seasonal rentals, which the current legislation does not address.

Before the vote, Hubbard said, "We can't handle the code we have now." He suggested perhaps a part-time code enforcement officer be hired to help handle code violations. He also said he believed summer rentals should be included in the legislations; he voted no.

Trustee Julia Robins said she believes in the need for safe, affordable rentals. As a former building contractor and current realtor who rents her home, Robins said she is "very aware of a number of rental properties where people are living in sub-par conditions. This law would give strength to the village to make landlords provide basic safety." She added, "I do not think it targets tenants specifically."

Trustee Mary Bess Phillips said she agreed with issues raised about privacy and constitutionality.  She also said she agreed enforcement was critical before any law was put on the books. The village's building department, she said, has been understaffed for years; she had wanted a plan of action for the building department for years. Phillips voted no to the resolution.

Nyce said he after a number of public hearings, "nothing has been said to dissuade me. This is a good law. It's well-written and fair." After listening to public comment, the draft was sent back to code committee for revision and is now "less intrusive" than other such laws in other municipalities, Nyce said.

He added, "All it's looking to do is make sure rental properties in the village are safe."'

What do you think about the board's adopting the rental law? Share your thoughts with Patch.