Board of Aldermen Page 12
June 14, 2016
appeal that’s even better. It makes no sense. This thing was put together and it’s going to by lying
around for a long time and somebody says let’s go stick this all into the ordinance and that’s probably
why it is poorly drafted. If you look back at paragraph 74.482 and 74.4B1, 2 and 3, then it talks about a
penalty plus $50.00 after ten days up to $1,000. What does that mean? The highest fine, which is a
third violation of $500 so how do you get up to $1,000? Does that mean that you are going to be fined
every day $50.00? It’s unclear and vague by any rationale. Then there is Chapter 182, §26, violation of
penalties it says where no specific penalty is provided then there should be a fine of not more than
$1,000 and another issuance of a citation. So where there is no specific penalty you get a fine of up to
$1,000, what does that mean? What has that go to do with living conditions? Finally there is a lot of talk
about the warning; | think Alderman Clemons made that point. That warning has existed before a
discretionary warning was taken out and then was put back in. It says the head of the code enforcement
department, or his/her designee, may issue a warnings; it’s discretionary, “may” should at least when you
start issuing fines, the (inaudible) was before you had fines. You should at least change “may” to “shall”
so it’s mandatory. It makes it easier on the code enforcement not to have this stuff. It’s easy to put the
code enforcement people to have this list but look at it from the other side; they look for efficiency and
the demand for authority. Are we looking at people who have to meet these conditions and they have to
understand it so send the attorneys in so they can have a field day in court. Enough said but for all of
these reasons, take this thing back, table it, work it, l’m not against higher oversight over landlords, I’ve
owned several food businesses alone and oversight is good but don’t throw in everything but the kitchen
sink that something has to do with living conditions. Thank you.
Mr. Gene Parent, 15 % Main Street
| am totally against this proposed ordinance for a variety of reasons but what really ticked me off was the
way it was introduced. It was snuck in under other agendas so it would not be noticed. You could have
tried to view this ordinance not as an Alderman, not as someone who initiated it or sponsored it nor as a
city employee but as a Nashua landlord or a business owner. This proposed ordinance is vague and
tends to violate, fine and summons to court no one but the landlords and the business owners.
Everything is aimed at us. We have mentioned several times that we would like to sit down and discuss
things and no one said come on over. This to me is a one sided affair, just like Cecile Marquis said.
Does anyone listen to the public anymore? Who do you represent anyway? Please consider all of the
facts. Also, did anyone see the news two weeks ago on Fox News, Bill O’Reilly of the O’Reilly Factor?
He stated that cities across America are milking citizens and taking their money through fines, tickets,
permits, etc. or by increasing or initiating new ones. Is this what this ordinance is about, initiating a new
one and milk us out of the money? As far as Mayor Donchess goes, what you stated before under your
term that things would get better but what’s to say after you are gone; things always change and it’s not
in writing. Four years from now or whenever you go who is going to be next and what are they going to
do to us. I’m against this, please table it or send it back to committee so we can discuss it. We are
willing to talk, are you? Thank you.
Ms. Sue Newman, 25 Charlotte Avenue
| will be brief. | have followed this since the Country Barn Hotel issue came up and embarrassingly |
wasn’t aware of the situation there and be all that as it may, | was out of town today and | looked at the
newspaper on-line and the first thing | went to was the editorial and | assumed this was a slam dunk and
you would be and this legislation would be going through; O-16-003. Sometime later | looked at the front
page and realized there was some controversy with it. Rentals are tough, prices are up and when there
is a shortage of rentals anything that’s got four walls and maybe a roof that is mostly in good condition
can get rented. With that said, my involvement started with this with the television show and sometime
later on that year | spoke with David Deane and | explained in a spirited manner what | thought about the
whole thing; that | thought it was a use of working the system when you could have landlords apparently
keeping substandard or worse than that conditions that they could easily get rented and they got
vouchers so the money was coming in and the repairs were not required. With that | thought the
