Northwest Indiana Discussion :: View topic - Tom blames new legislation for future rental deaths?

Chuck, you are really a special kind of stupid, aren't you? The crime and drug dealing that occurred at that poorly managed complex impacted both Hammond and Highland. I think Mayor Dedelow was acting in the best interests of the home owners when he shuttered that cesspool. The lessons learned from that case have had a positive impact on the city. Hammond does a great job in going after owners of nuisance properties who rent to criminals.

Yes, the health inspections are relevant, but the argument here is the city's authority to inspect for compliance with HEALTH CODES. By contrast, the pending legislation being modified this session seems geared to compliance with inspections concerning compliance building codes and occupancy issues as against City Code Enforcement interests.

Yeah, there may be a health overlap but as your citation to IC 16 spells out, it has to do with "a local health officer or the officer's designee may enter any premisesat any reasonable time and inspect, investigate, evaluate, conduct tests, or take specimens or samples for testing that may be reasonably necessary to determine compliance with public health laws and rules and for the prevention and suppression of disease." IC 16-20-1-23(a)(2).

The inspection fee funding exercise of Code enforcement powers are not derived from concerns with health issues.

Not as I see it, anyway.

"The mayor and the council would be well advised to reinstate the health department, because by a city ordinance still on the books (at least on the internet) and still in force, and the health department is the only department with this authority - not even code enforcement, inspections department or whatever the name du jour is, has this authority. If Inspections / Code Enforcement (CE) were granted this authority, there would be numerous lawsuits. I might be wrong with CE having this authority only because I cannot find it on the website.

*****
Well advised? Or what? ROFL. THERE IS NO HEALTH DEPT. That authority now rests with the county version of it, as it is the Lake County county health dept that governs health issues once enforced by the city.

Neometric wrote:

"Formerly Hammond" proves the point that you can't fix stupid.

Author:	justcallmetommy [ Sun Feb 23, 2014 9:03 am ]
Post subject:	Re: Tom blames new legislation for future rental deaths?
sparks wrote: Chuck, you are really a special kind of stupid, aren't you? The crime and drug dealing that occurred at that poorly managed complex impacted both Hammond and Highland. I think Mayor Dedelow was acting in the best interests of the home owners when he shuttered that cesspool. The lessons learned from that case have had a positive impact on the city. Hammond does a great job in going after owners of nuisance properties who rent to criminals. Speaking of Stuipd, Dave, I'll go back to your comment a house was purchased for the price of two happy meals. It really is amazing that you can snap your suspenders in the morning. Maybe that is assuming too much, but it's now clear why you work for the city. Great depth of intelligence. You are to dense to understand Dedelow and his crew broke the law, violated the 14th Amendment of Due Process resulting in a $22,000,000 judgement, which I believe you are still paying off. Can you understand that Mr. Happy Meal?

Author:	Neometric [ Sun Feb 23, 2014 9:31 am ]
Post subject:	Re: Tom blames new legislation for future rental deaths?
Yes, the health inspections are relevant, but the argument here is the city's authority to inspect for compliance with HEALTH CODES. By contrast, the pending legislation being modified this session seems geared to compliance with inspections concerning compliance building codes and occupancy issues as against City Code Enforcement interests. Yeah, there may be a health overlap but as your citation to IC 16 spells out, it has to do with "a local health officer or the officer's designee may enter any premisesat any reasonable time and inspect, investigate, evaluate, conduct tests, or take specimens or samples for testing that may be reasonably necessary to determine compliance with public health laws and rules and for the prevention and suppression of disease." IC 16-20-1-23(a)(2). The inspection fee funding exercise of Code enforcement powers are not derived from concerns with health issues. Not as I see it, anyway.

Author:	justcallmetommy [ Sun Feb 23, 2014 8:51 pm ]
Post subject:	Re: Tom blames new legislation for future rental deaths?
Neometric wrote: Yes, the health inspections are relevant, but the argument here is the city's authority to inspect for compliance with HEALTH CODES. By contrast, the pending legislation being modified this session seems geared to compliance with inspections concerning compliance building codes and occupancy issues as against City Code Enforcement interests. Yeah, there may be a health overlap but as your citation to IC 16 spells out, it has to do with "a local health officer or the officer's designee may enter any premisesat any reasonable time and inspect, investigate, evaluate, conduct tests, or take specimens or samples for testing that may be reasonably necessary to determine compliance with public health laws and rules and for the prevention and suppression of disease." IC 16-20-1-23(a)(2). The inspection fee funding exercise of Code enforcement powers are not derived from concerns with health issues. Not as I see it, anyway. It seems Neo, Mayor McDermott Jr.'s Code Enforcement Department failed the residents of 644 Sibley. They very well could have called more competent skilled individuals at the County Health Department to have helped resolved the issues in the residence. Unfortunately, they didn't.

Author:	formerly hammond [ Tue Feb 25, 2014 10:10 pm ]
Post subject:	Re: Tom blames new legislation for future rental deaths?
Well Neomtric, there is quite a bit of overlap - more than you are capable of understanding. But that is another argument. The mayor and the council would be well advised to reinstate the health department, because by a city ordinance still on the books (at least on the internet) and still in force, and the health department is the only department with this authority - not even code enforcement, inspections department or whatever the name du jour is, has this authority. If Inspections / Code Enforcement (CE) were granted this authority, there would be numerous lawsuits. I might be wrong with CE having this authority only because I cannot find it on the website. So, still on the internet at amlegal . com is this little gem: Â§ 95.02 AUTHORITY TO ENTER PREMISES. (A) The Board of Health and members thereof shall have full and complete authority to enter any and all premises, houses or buildings within the city, for the purpose of inspecting or examining the premises, houses or buildings. (B) It shall be unlawful for any person to prevent or attempt to prevent any entrance or inspection or examination, provided, that before making or attempting to make the entrance, due request for permission is made and the entrance is not made or attempted at an improper or unreasonable hour. (Prior Code, Â§ 95.02) Penalty, see Â§ 10.99 I could find no repeal of this ordinance. Here's the link for the heathen infidels who read this board: http://amlegal.com/nxt/gateway.dll/Indi ... hammond_in So my proposal is this: reinstate the health department and place the entire building department under the health department - then the city would have absolute authority to enter into any structure AND the city could still require "rental licenses" under health department authority. You understand, the mayor and some other governments throughout the state became overzealous and aggravated large property owners, just the wrong kind of people - the very people who help fund campaigns. So the property owners cry to the state and the state slaps the hands of every CE and Building Department in the state. I seriously doubt the state will diminish health department authority or power. If anything, the state would likely increase said power and authority. Think about it. The mayor threw away a powerful department - for what? To save a few bucks and place his own friends and family in juicy positions? That's not just dumb, that is criminal in my opinion. And furthermore, thanks to the infinite wisdom of Tom Dabertin, everything he touches turns into excrement. The city needs to get rid of him!

Author:	Neometric [ Thu Feb 27, 2014 9:06 am ]
Post subject:	Re: Tom blames new legislation for future rental deaths?
"The mayor and the council would be well advised to reinstate the health department, because by a city ordinance still on the books (at least on the internet) and still in force, and the health department is the only department with this authority - not even code enforcement, inspections department or whatever the name du jour is, has this authority. If Inspections / Code Enforcement (CE) were granted this authority, there would be numerous lawsuits. I might be wrong with CE having this authority only because I cannot find it on the website. ***** Well advised? Or what? ROFL. THERE IS NO HEALTH DEPT. That authority now rests with the county version of it, as it is the Lake County county health dept that governs health issues once enforced by the city.

Northwest Indiana Discussion http://northwestindiana.com/discussionforum/

Tom blames new legislation for future rental deaths? http://northwestindiana.com/discussionforum/viewtopic.php?f=15&t=11539	Page 2 of 2

Author:	sparks [ Thu Feb 27, 2014 12:55 pm ]
Post subject:	Re: Tom blames new legislation for future rental deaths?
Neometric wrote: "The mayor and the council would be well advised to reinstate the health department, because by a city ordinance still on the books (at least on the internet) and still in force, and the health department is the only department with this authority - not even code enforcement, inspections department or whatever the name du jour is, has this authority. If Inspections / Code Enforcement (CE) were granted this authority, there would be numerous lawsuits. I might be wrong with CE having this authority only because I cannot find it on the website. ***** Well advised? Or what? ROFL. THERE IS NO HEALTH DEPT. That authority now rests with the county version of it, as it is the Lake County county health dept that governs health issues once enforced by the city. "Formerly Hammond" proves the point that you can't fix stupid.

Author:	justcallmetommy [ Thu Feb 27, 2014 4:58 pm ]
Post subject:	Re: Tom blames new legislation for future rental deaths?
sparks wrote: Neometric wrote: "The mayor and the council would be well advised to reinstate the health department, because by a city ordinance still on the books (at least on the internet) and still in force, and the health department is the only department with this authority - not even code enforcement, inspections department or whatever the name du jour is, has this authority. If Inspections / Code Enforcement (CE) were granted this authority, there would be numerous lawsuits. I might be wrong with CE having this authority only because I cannot find it on the website. ***** Well advised? Or what? ROFL. THERE IS NO HEALTH DEPT. That authority now rests with the county version of it, as it is the Lake County county health dept that governs health issues once enforced by the city. "Formerly Hammond" proves the point that you can't fix stupid. and speaking of stupid, had McDermott's Code Enforcement Department called the County Health Department the kids @ 644 Sibley very well may be alive today. Speaking of Stupid, Didn't Sparks write 644 Sibley sold for less than a couple of Happy Meals.

Author:	board monkey [ Thu Feb 27, 2014 11:01 pm ]
Post subject:	Re: Tom blames new legislation for future rental deaths?
The county health dept. won't come out and investigate any report from the city departments unless they have visual proof from inside the property. That proof wasn't obtainable due to the owners constant changing hands of the property and not allowing the city to inspect.

Page 2 of 2	All times are UTC - 6 hours
Powered by phpBB © 2000, 2002, 2005, 2007 phpBB Group http://www.phpbb.com/