Landlords stand ground

In the continuation of the landlord saga between the College, landlords and the city, the city of Oberlin has moved to dismiss its federal Civil Rights suit. The complexity of the on-going battle between city, College and landlords seems to have confused most of those involved.

John Fitch, who owns two houses, has installed exterior fire-escapes and hard-wired smoke-detectors, and said that the cost of these items was substantial. "Economically it was a wash, but it probably increased the value of the property," he said. The changes can cost upwards of $22,000.

Evelyn Kountoupes, who also made the required changes, said, "I'm sure that a lot of people didn't go along with it happily. I feel that houses cleared in the past by the city should not have to be cleared again."

Kountoupes explained that she has lost a significant amount of revenue because one of her rooms had to be used for emergency egress. "I felt that Dye's letter was defamatory," she said of President Nancy Dye's letter which listed unlicensed landlords.

The landlords actually involved in the suit against the city feel that their lives have been significantly affected by their legal actions and that they have been harassed by the city. All of them of them seem to feel that the law is on their side.

"Collectively we've spent well over $100,000. It may seem ridiculous for us to spend that kind of money but when we win the city will have to pay us back," said Van Kirkendall. "As a tax payer, I don't like the idea, myself."

"We're bound to win because we have the law on our side," said Carol Graham. "The thing that seems most difficult is the financial situation...our incomes are going to be slashed...next year," she said.

Graham appeared at a housing renewal commission meeting this Tuesday. "I was raked over the coals," she said. "We'd like to get our licenses and our reputations back. It's going to be at least a couple of years before we get another set of upper-classmen who don't think, 'Carol Graham, she's that scum-bag.'" Her tenants declined to comment on the situation.

"When the city presented its case as hand-over-heart fire-safety, we were cast in the role of slum-lord villains," said David Sonner. Sonner believes that the city has been tyrannical. "When several landlords gathered at a city meeting, one of us asked what would happen if we couldn't meet the city's new requirements in time. 'The bulldozers will roll,' answered the fire chief, and he did not say it lightly," said Sonner.

Sonner claims that the city has harassed him in other ways. Contrary to the city's claims, he says that he has not fully complied with the new standards. "I have not complied insofar as I have not put in a drinking fountain," he said. He explained that building inspector Kenneth Klingshirn ordered he install such a fountain in order to meet city standards. Sonner said he felt that the city's harassment was in clear violation of the law.

"We've tried to make sure that our actions were well founded in law," said City Manager Robert DiSpirito. He said that he feels that the city has acted fairly and legally in order to insure against real dangers.

DiSpirito said that the Ohio Board of Basic Building Standards, whose information officer, William Teets, has said that landlords did not have to meet new safety standards, does not apply to the city's enforcement of its own safety codes.

"We are a charter city and we can be tougher than the State and there are plenty of other cities that do that. [Department of Commerce] don't have purview over our licensure." DiSpirito also said that the landlords' claims that the city could not impose safety standards retroactively were moot. "When you're dealing with something as basic as fire safety, retroactivity is sort of a specious argument."

Fire Chief Dennis Kirin said that the State Code that the landlords believe renders them exempt from the new safety standards does not apply to Oberlin's own fire codes. "Chapter 34 exists primarily for use by architects to address the renovation of old or historic houses..." he said.

DiSpirito explained that he understood that cost of the structural changes his administration was requiring could be steep. "When you're renting to ten or 12 students at $250 a head, there's gotta be some income capability there," he said.

"We discovered clear and present safety hazards," DiSpirito said. "There were some houses which had attic apartments heated entirely by space heaters. Their owners were ordered to turn them off and refused. That's one where you lay awake at night staring at the ceiling tiles wondering if somebody's going to die," he said.

"What gets lost in this is that the vast majority [of landlords] have complied," said DiSpirito. "Betty Baxter sold her house and Sonner has complied, so we're really only talking about a few individuals." The lawsuit, he explained, was still serious, but he expected to win out. "We don't believe it's of any merit," he said. "Anybody can file a lawsuit."