What began as a brief notice from College administrators to all Oberlin students has erupted into a complicated legal battle between six Oberlin landlords and the College administration. A March 1998 letter from administrators effectively prohibited students from residing in unlicensed rooming houses, some of them owned by the six landlords who are now suing Oberlin College for defamation. The crux of the dispute regards fire safety violations in the landlord's rooming houses which President Nancy Dye said the landlords were reluctant to fix. "One of the things that gets lost in the press coverage of the suit is that the issue is not the violations per se, but their willful refusal to address them," Dye said.
Oberlin landlord David Sonner sees this criticism as hypocritical. In a recent press release Sonner argued that Old Barrows and Allencroft (Russian House) technically violate basic rooming house codes by having third floor escape ladders recently forbidden by the Ohio Board of Building Standards. City code defines a rooming house as a residence quartering no fewer than five and no more than 20 unrelated rent-paying tenants. The Oberlin Planning Commission has proposed to adjust the definition to between six and 16 tenants, but the proposal has yet to be approved. Sonner and the Oberlin landlords are arguing that although the rooming house ordinance has been effective since 1968, the College never obtained licenses for Allencroft and Old Barrows, both of which house an amount of students falling within this range.
In his press release Sonner said that no more than four tenants should be allowed in either building until the College obtains a license. Landlord Van Kirkendall added, "It's so ironic that the College has rooming houses that are the same or worse as ours." Dye disagrees that the buildings should be categorized as rooming houses, saying the city holds them to the higher standard of apartment buildings. Moreover, Dye said that if any dormitories were in violation of safety codes, they "can and should be cited and it's our obligation to fix them. We uphold all city and state regulations," she added.
City Solicitor Eric Severs has been researching the history of the two buildings since July to determine whether they should be responsible for rooming house standards. He has yet to release any results. While Dye did not know of Sever's research, Sonner is aware of the investigation, calling it, "an on-the-run concoction in order for the College to avoid the issue and they've successfully done that. The College can't get rooming house licenses. They're the College...who's going to call them on it? It's taken six months of historical research to do what anyone with two working brain cells could do in 30 seconds," he added.
On June 17, 1999 the Ohio Board of Building Standards (OBBC) voted 10-0 to revoke the city of Oberlin's authority to administer state building codes, a ruling the city has appealed. Landlord Carol Graham approved of the OBBC's striking the city's authority to preside over building codes. "We're very pleased about the city being decertified and the appeal will almost certainly be overturned. They have not been playing by the rules for a long time and they're running me out of business," she said.
Sonner is also disputing the College's decision to house students in dormitory lounges, a consequence of this year's large freshman class. "In keeping with the practice of doing whatever they goddamn well please they converted nonresidential space to residential space - a big fire violation." While Sonner said that the College must obtain a permit to make such a conversion, Fire Chief Dennis Kirin said a permit was not necessary because a dorm is considered the equivalent of a house.
The landlords are also citing the City of Oberlin as incorrect in making them apply safety standards retroactively. Sonner claims the OBBC expressly forbids retroactive enforcement of fire safety codes. "The (College) has expressed supreme concern over codes, but the College went with the city, who misapplied the codes. Also, the College hasn't been in compliance with the codes," Sonner said. Sonner described Executive Secretary of OBBC John Brant as "incensed" over the city's actions regarding rooming houses.
The OBBC recently conducted an investigation of Building Official and Inspector Ken Klingshirn, accusing him of two major infractions. When a lack of space forced students to live in dormitory lounges this year, Klingshirn failed to inspect the dorms, telling staff he felt he did not have right of entry. Commenting on Klingshirn's lack of inspection activity, Dye said, "He can inspect any dorm any time he wants to. The city regularly inspects all of our dorms." Moreover, the OBBC investigation report says that although the 1998 edition of the OBBC was in effect at the time, Klingshirn presented the designer of the Environmental Studies Center with the option of adhering to the outdated 1995 edition.
The expected next step in the Oberlin landlords' suit against the College administration is for Dye to deliver a deposition. Graham said, "We feel very much wronged by the letters sent out by [the administration]." Kirkendall dismissed the notion of landlords easing their pressure on the College after so much legal hassle. "If we didn't believe we had a good case we wouldn't be pushing this," he said. Dye views the landlords' previous resistance to repairing safety hazards as the central focus of the dilemma. "What the city has been upset with is not that the landlords had violations but that they refused to fix them," she said. Sonner suspects the College has been using institutional authority to cover its own mistakes. "This is not about safety; it's about ego protection and the protection of careers," he said.
Copyright © 2000, The Oberlin Review.
Volume 128, Number 14, February 18, 2000
Contact us with your comments and suggestions.