Jennifer Davis reports today on Gary Sandberg’s disputes with the city over property he owns. He had to pay fines before he was sworn in as an at-large councilman or else face the possibility of being removed for being in violation of state law 65 ILCS 5/3.1‑10‑5(b). That statute states you can’t hold municipal office if you’re “in arrears in the payment of a tax or other indebtedness.” Sandberg owed a couple of fines ($110 for the city to clean up what he claims were properly-stored construction materials on his property, and $500 for not registering another property he owns as rental property; he claims it’s owner occupied) which he paid off just before being sworn in a couple weeks ago.
Having heard both sides of the story on the the city clean-up item, I feel that Gary should have paid those fines a long time ago (the incident happened in 2004). He still could have fought against any due-process violations he felt were made without withholding payment.
The housing issue is interesting, though. Sandberg claims he occupies the house at 1723 N. Bigelow at least part-time, but the city says otherwise. Because the property doesn’t have water or electric service, it was determined by the city that it is not occupied and therefore has to be registered. I think that sounds logical and reasonable. While a case could be made that you don’t have to have electricity to occupy a house, I think you definitely need to have water, if for no other reason than to flush the toilet.
But here’s the issue. I can find no definition of “occupied” or “occupancy” in the municipal code that requires electric or water service. Can anyone find it for me? And is electric and water service the only things necessary for a house to be considered “occupied”?
I ask only because 616 Phelps isn’t registered with the city. That’s the supposed city residence of Streets Department manager David Haste. That home apparently has water and electricity, but no stove. No stove means no cooking. Unlike the absence of a clear definition of “occupied,” the code is pretty clear on what constitutes a “dwelling.”
The definition of “dwelling” in Sec. 5-520 states (emphasis mine), “Dwelling shall mean any enclosed space which is wholly or partially habitable by human occupants, and is used or intended to be used for living, sleeping, cooking and eating….” So, why is it that Haste can be considered in compliance with registration requirements even though his house isn’t even a “dwelling” by definition?
My point here is not that Sandberg should get off the hook because others got off the hook. My point is that enforcement of these ordinances should be evenhanded, and they’re not. There are different rules for different people.
When Haste is found to not meet city residency requirements, it’s overlooked. But when Sandberg is found in violation of property registration requirements, he’s threatened with being unseated if he doesn’t pay.
I guess it all depends on who’s got your back.
I was thinking along the same lines when reading that article this a.m. Gary’s arguements got me thinking about what constitues an occupied structure versus unoccupied as well as the issue you point out which is: What constitutes a primary place of residence? Clearly you can only have one primary place of residence – but nothing prohibits you from having more than one.
There are many houses in town that do not have water or electricity (such as when you’re selling a house and have already moved out but before someone has purchased it). While this is a short-term situation usually it’s very similar to the situation facing Gary Sandberg.
Sounds like the rental registration ordinance should more appropriately be titled a “non-owner occupied primary place of residence” ordinance if this is how it is applied. In terms of impact on the neighborhood, if I own a house and allow family members to live in it rent free – how is that distinguishable from a place I rent out.
As for having a stove in your house to cook on making it habitable I disagree. I lived in my house for four years without a stove. I don’t like to cook and wouldn’t have one now if a friend hadn’t bought one and installed it. I use my microwave all the time. So having a cooking stove is really not relative. As for a second residence, what says that you can’t own five or six houses that are not occupied? Just because you own several houses does not make you a landlord. It makes you a land owner. If the houses are kept up and not being used as rentals what is the problem? Gary could classify the house as a huge walk in closet for extra belongings, who cares? He should not have to register as a landlord if he is not renting it out.
The other side of the coin on all this is that there are many yards in this city that need cleaning up and they go year after year with no interference from the city. So why did they pick on Gary? Somebody’s toes got stepped on and this was the relatliation.
Perhaps it was retaliation, I don’t know., but shouldn’t one lead by example. How can we expect more if our leaders are doing less themselves. It is frustrating that while everyone splits hairs over the letter of the law, we’re not even getting the intent and the slumlords continue to laugh all the way to the bank with our tax dollars in their pockets. (Section 8 $$$). If you are going to be living in a structure there needs to be working utilities, whether you have a stove or a microwave is irrevelant. Is it rental, I don’t know, but it is not owner occupied, so it must be something else. All these games are played by bad landlords and more by bad tenants. The intent is that the property is safe, cared for, if occupied then utilities are working and it is liveable. As a good neighbor, one should keep the grass mowed, the house in repair and contruction projects down a dull roar. We need to treat others as we would like to be treated. We have lost sight of the objective….
I agree with SD — you can cook with a microwave, perhaps a bbq, hitachi, etc.
616 Phelps is listed as Residential Non-Owner Occupied. So is David Haste renting it from himself or the dual property owner?
Whereas, 1723 Bigelow’s owner is listed in Morton, Illinois.
What gives?
The ordinance is for landlords. If Gary did not rent the house he is not a landlord. I at one point owned a home in Peoria that I used for storage. Many times the city sent their forms for me to register, but I never did. To me the house was a storage unit. If Gary is not renting the house, the city should get off his back. I agree with Peo Proud that if the city wants to call it RENTAL registration, then it should apply to RENTALS.
Just thought that I would add that the city does inspections of registered units to make sure they are habitable. If someone is just using a home for storage that would not work. How many folks own a garage that would pass city inspections as a habitable unit?
The ordinance is present only to know who owns what. You can’t talk to a slumlord if ou don’t know who owns the property. The example show that a non-rental designation is needed.
CJ’s main point is that the City has double standards (OK, maybe triple?). We have seen this again and again and again. Those that are not subject to the rules just thumb their nose and let the rest of us know they have no shame. When is somebody going to stand up and say, equality under the law is the way its going to be or, if you can’t apply the same rule to everyone, then get rid of the rule.
“The ordinance is for landlords.”
This is what I’m confused about. Is the ordinance for landlords renting out places, or is it for ALL non-owner-occupied homes? I mean, if someone had a vacation home in Peoria and was here 2 months a year, would that fall under the ordinance? What if it was 2 weeks a year?
Eyebrows …. that’s what I’m unclear on also. I recall the intent was that it only covered rental units; which would imply that the owner rented it out. However, Councilman Sandberg doesn’t rent his other house out so it’s unclear to me how he’d get entrapped in that ordinance.
If the ordinance covered non-owner occupied structures, then I’m really wondering how that is determined and enforced on a consistent basis. That seems to be a little stretch unless there are clear guidelines to follow.
Maybe I should look up the City’s ordinance online and try a little independent research of my own.