Landlord criticizes town for kicking out tenants

http://www.sunjournal.com/story/292634-3/RiverValley/Landlord_criticizes_town_for_kicking_out_tenants/

I wasn't aware that the town owned apartment buildings. Uninsured? What happens if there is a fire or injury?? Why haven't they evicted the tenants and put the buildings up for auction? Wouldn't this be a good opportunity to make a deal with a retail business/developer to get the property at a reasonable price if they took care of demolition or rehab?

These people must have known for quite some time they were expected to leave. I think with a court order the town could have these tenants out in as little as 7 days.

http://www.drcme.org/publications.asp?pubid=27&secid=169

Today's SJ says money was taken from the Economic Development Fund to help the tenants. Was there a vote on this? Unbelievable...talk about making a bad situation worse. We're just going to allow the town to use up the Economic Development Fund to correct their own errors? How about using the Town Offices Fund? Anyone want to explain before they use up the $90,000 on who knows what?

Don't get me wrong, the intent to make something right is good - the way they do it is wrong. Edit: Maybe instead of "wrong" I mean, poor accounting choice? This isn't a slam to Len - I think he is ill-advised by some of the board.

The town owns buildings that have been acquired through the tax process. They don't go out buying property.

By the way, The rules that everyone is so upset about being enforced were voted in recently by the citizens of Rumford. Next time, read before you vote.

Is anyone up to circulating a petition to have us vote to repeal this ordinance? While we are at it, let's circulate a petition to withdraw from the Super SAD before it costs us BIG money.

[note: just because I advocate repealling an ordinance, it dosen't mean I advocate violating said ordinance. As I have previously stated, "If you don't agree with a rule, work to change it, but until it is changed, you must fiollow it". ]

I assumed the buildings were acquired for non-payment of taxes or some such reason. What is the connection about the town not buying property? I don't know if I'm missing something from another post?

You are right in that the citizens voted this in...it's the age-old question of democracy - should the uninformed get to vote? I think we always come down on "YES" for that one. I have to confess that there have been times in my life in a voting booth where I really didn't understand the question or issue. When I talk to young women and encourage them to vote, they often say they really don't know anything about it. I encourage them to vote anyway. I think it's a learning process...sometimes the more we participate, the more informed we become.

The statement about the town not buying property was to contrast the tax acquired property. Just negating a possible assumption that may have occurred.

RUMFORD - Town Manager Len Greaney spent Friday trying to do right by
four tenants being evicted from two tax-acquired town apartment
buildings on Waldo Street.

Using economic development funds,
Greaney decided to provide vouchers for security deposits to landlords
who have space for the tenants from 426 and 438 Waldo St.

"Today, the town takes possession (of the buildings), so if the fuel
tanks need a couple hundred bucks worth of fuel, we'll keep (the
tenants) warm until they move out, which makes me feel a lot better.
We're trying to be sensitive and solve problems for the tenants,"
Greaney said.

sunjournal 11-22-08


Do these tid-bits of information seem as odd to you as they do me?
The TM is a contributor to the TRR.
JSN has a crusade for tenant rights in our community.
JSN wanted to be the Economic Developer for Rumford but that position was given to volunteers.
Questionable use of Economic Development (which is a crucial need in Rumford now) funds to pay for tenants oil and relocation costs.



Do you suppose JSN had any influence regarding the appropriation of those funds? Couldn't those funds have come from somewhere else?

I am a bit of an expert at rationalization (self and otherwise), but even I couldn't come up with a plausible reason for the use of "economic development funds" to be used in this situation. Not that I don't have sympathy for the tenants, but they are clearly pawns in whatever game is being played out here. Something very fishy and I cannot imagine who the turtle at the bottom of the pond is! (ok, i CAN!)

10. Goal: Support and monitor Economic Development progress against spending (Local, State and Federal). Advocate and communicate the need to achieve results when we spend the taxpayer’s money. Results: Our ED volunteers have provided significant service without spending to the planned budgeted levels. Several potential business opportunities are underway with constant and professional interactions with the stakeholders.

Rumford Town Manager: Len Greaney
Municipal Accomplishments July-September 2008

Taken from The Lisbon Reporter - Tuesday, July 15, 2008

"Overview of Our Former Town Manager's Tenure in Rumford, Maine
Steve Eldridge as a Manager
By Len Greaney

"Steve was a smooth talker without measurable accomplishments. He nurtured the relationships with strong supporters and related to his detractors in a disingenuous manner. Often, he worked behind the scenes to influence three of the selectmen to his way of thinking."

Let's see if Len does much better. He appears to be a visionary who lacks the practicality of detail management, thus causing him to make some pretty big mistakes. He looks for small "wins" and avoids the larger issues because he has a hard time bringing his "plans" to fruition...I think he's just trying to survive his time. I can't say he took the funds from Economic Development because he was trying to do something wrong...I would at least say he is ill-advised and a novice. I would ask the same question Len asked himself about Steve in his Lisbon Reporter article:

"12. AND LAST: Ask, "WHY DID I THINK HE WAS SO GREAT?"

Well, I never thought Len was SO great but I did want to give him the benefit of the doubt. I'm running out of that generous feeling. Hey, anyone want to revisit the concept of expanding to a seven member board?

Why help the tenants with econ dev money? It has nothing to do with JSN, who is not involved with these properties at all.

The properties in question are prime commercial sites which could spark a redevelopment of the worst section of Rumford from delapidated housing to new commercial use.

There are a lot of factors in play and not appropriate for discussion here. The town should have moved last summer to get the tenants out of the buildings by offering moving help and that was the advice that the town manager received several months ago. He vacillated, worried about legal ramifications. Now, it's late and there's no choice, we have to vacate those buildings. So that leaves the the accounting question: where do you get the money? Our volunteer econ dev committee has saved the town tens of thousands of dollars, and now that's available to apply directly to a purpose which could turn around the most depressed section of town.

Oh, yeah. How did the town get the buildings? Simple: if you don't pay your property taxes, an automatic process (not the workings of nefarious town officials) renders the town an automatic foreclosure and full title to do whatever the selectmen decide to do with your property.

ok, phil, thanks, and consider everyone here peach slapped.

oh, and "peach" rhymes with beach , so just change a couple vowels around to sound like RICH

Len never should have said in the paper that he took it from Economic Development funds and if he made the mistake of saying it, he should have corrected himself the next day. BTW, if uncertain, the accounting question should be answered by an accountant. I'm sure people can rationalize anything they want to themselves...unfortunately they don't make for good advisors. At worst case scenario Len could have said, well, we took it from there because it was readily available or it was an emergency and we didn't know what to do, but we will move or have moved to take it from the appropriate fund...I'd be satisfied with that. Hey, it's our money and we have the right to know how it's spent. If anyone has a problem with our questioning, well, then they have a problem.

Perhaps a better source would have been the welfare budget.

True. Our town is in dire need of economic development. I think that is the last budget that should be dipped into as a rainy day or emergency fund. If those funds aren't spent they should be treated as an investment and left to grow so when there is a project or need they are readily available. I also think any money spent on the tenant relocation (beyond what they would have rec'd for a returned security deposit) should be repaid back to the town. That should include any past due rent. These people knew when the town foreclosed that they would have to move, unless they had a written lease I don't even see why it was so complicated getting them out.