Weighing in on housing issue
We got an unsigned letter in the other day (Princeton) responding to our series on rental property (http://www.princetonleadernow.com/062106/rent3.html). As is our policy, we are not publishing the letter, because it is unsigned, but I think the writer raises some good points.
As they point out, many younger people in today’s economy can’t afford to buy a home, and many older people can’t. While there was discussion of renters who can destroy property and not be the type of people you want to live around, many renters are good people, good neighbors and good citizens. Still, some are clearly not.
I don’t believe anyone is saying we don’t need rental property or renters in Princeton. The experts say we have too many older, not well maintained, rental houses in town, owned by absentee owners.
Those are very troubling parts of that equation. Too many means there is a glut of properties available, meaning it will be tough to get a good rental income from them. Older homes often mean high maintenance costs, and often that means that leaky roofs or busted screens or worse go unfixed for long periods, adding to the problems. Absentee owners are often only concerned about their rent check, not investing more money in their property.
There’s nothing wrong with some. Some older homes make good rentals. Some landlords spend a lot of time and money keeping their properties up. Some absentee owners are good landlords. In every case, clearly, some are not. And in too many cases around Princeton.
One innovative way to turn things around is to offer incentives to good perspective buyers for former rental property. Owner-occupants are more likely to make improvements in properties.
One way is to aggressively pursue the minimum housing ordinance, and perhaps increase the standards. One can argue that most residents would never accept living conditions which the current standards call for. This is hard and controversial.
Another, which some have suggested, is licensure for rental agents/owners with three or more rental properties. Again, this is controversial, but it may be the most practical of all solutions. You have virtually no control over renters, but you can put some limits on landlords.
The town board has had the good sense to address important issues, rather than just wringing their hands because they were tough or would cost some money to address. This issue could bring Princeton into a death spiral. There are other examples across eastern North Carolina.
It’s easier to say we don’t know how to handle it, and less costly. Not addressing it is making a decision to kill the town.
As I was reflecting on that letter, the writer jumped to some assumptions and accused us of making some rash judgments (which were not borne out by the articles). We all have our triggers and I am not immune.
I was a bit put off by the Princeton Town Board’s lack of guts in putting off merit increases for town employees in favor of not increasing taxes. That hit two of my triggers.
I have a responsibility to my employees to pay them and fairly compensate them. If I cannot do that, I risk losing them. To tell them I can’t pay them more because I can’t afford it is one thing. When I don’t have the guts enough to ask my customers to pay more for the good product we are producing, that’s another.
Some will argue that any tax is bad, any fees are bad, and virtually no one will tell you they want to pay more for this newspaper or for taxes or for water or sewer fees. That doesn’t absolve the town board or me of our responsibility to our employees. Anyone who has employees will tell you it’s a lot cheaper to reward good employees than to hire and train new ones.
I have an even greater responsibility to those employees who have done a better job. I particularly need to reward them if I want to keep them. To say we will do across-the-board increases and no merit increases really bangs on that other trigger. You tend to lose the employees who are good and can find work elsewhere, and keep the ones who can’t find a good job (with regular increases). I could live with some merit increases but no across-the-board increases, but it’s easier to say we will give everyone a little raise.
I might be tempted to say gutless.
As they point out, many younger people in today’s economy can’t afford to buy a home, and many older people can’t. While there was discussion of renters who can destroy property and not be the type of people you want to live around, many renters are good people, good neighbors and good citizens. Still, some are clearly not.
I don’t believe anyone is saying we don’t need rental property or renters in Princeton. The experts say we have too many older, not well maintained, rental houses in town, owned by absentee owners.
Those are very troubling parts of that equation. Too many means there is a glut of properties available, meaning it will be tough to get a good rental income from them. Older homes often mean high maintenance costs, and often that means that leaky roofs or busted screens or worse go unfixed for long periods, adding to the problems. Absentee owners are often only concerned about their rent check, not investing more money in their property.
There’s nothing wrong with some. Some older homes make good rentals. Some landlords spend a lot of time and money keeping their properties up. Some absentee owners are good landlords. In every case, clearly, some are not. And in too many cases around Princeton.
One innovative way to turn things around is to offer incentives to good perspective buyers for former rental property. Owner-occupants are more likely to make improvements in properties.
One way is to aggressively pursue the minimum housing ordinance, and perhaps increase the standards. One can argue that most residents would never accept living conditions which the current standards call for. This is hard and controversial.
Another, which some have suggested, is licensure for rental agents/owners with three or more rental properties. Again, this is controversial, but it may be the most practical of all solutions. You have virtually no control over renters, but you can put some limits on landlords.
The town board has had the good sense to address important issues, rather than just wringing their hands because they were tough or would cost some money to address. This issue could bring Princeton into a death spiral. There are other examples across eastern North Carolina.
It’s easier to say we don’t know how to handle it, and less costly. Not addressing it is making a decision to kill the town.
As I was reflecting on that letter, the writer jumped to some assumptions and accused us of making some rash judgments (which were not borne out by the articles). We all have our triggers and I am not immune.
I was a bit put off by the Princeton Town Board’s lack of guts in putting off merit increases for town employees in favor of not increasing taxes. That hit two of my triggers.
I have a responsibility to my employees to pay them and fairly compensate them. If I cannot do that, I risk losing them. To tell them I can’t pay them more because I can’t afford it is one thing. When I don’t have the guts enough to ask my customers to pay more for the good product we are producing, that’s another.
Some will argue that any tax is bad, any fees are bad, and virtually no one will tell you they want to pay more for this newspaper or for taxes or for water or sewer fees. That doesn’t absolve the town board or me of our responsibility to our employees. Anyone who has employees will tell you it’s a lot cheaper to reward good employees than to hire and train new ones.
I have an even greater responsibility to those employees who have done a better job. I particularly need to reward them if I want to keep them. To say we will do across-the-board increases and no merit increases really bangs on that other trigger. You tend to lose the employees who are good and can find work elsewhere, and keep the ones who can’t find a good job (with regular increases). I could live with some merit increases but no across-the-board increases, but it’s easier to say we will give everyone a little raise.
I might be tempted to say gutless.
posted by Barry | 11:02 AM
0 Comments:
Post a Comment
<< Home