November l,1995


Mayor W. Paul Martin
210 Walston Avenue
Salisbury, MD 21801

Dear Mayor Martin:

I join with the Council, your administrative staff, and the citizens of 
Salisbury in wishing you a speedy and complete recovery from your 
current health problems, and regret the need to intrude upon your 
convalescence to discuss city business.

I am disappointed that you have chosen to exercise your veto 
authority (for the first time ever) to preclude implementation of our 
"Rental Licensing & Inspection" ordinance. This ordinance is similar
to ones currently in place in eight of the ten largest cities in the
state. One of the two current non-inspecting cities is scheduled to
initiate a mandatory program in July 1996. In every case, the quality 
of rental housing stock has improved.

Part of my disappointment stems from seeing you disavow your 
oft-stated commitment to decrease the continued encroachment of 
neighborhood blight. I am reminded that the original ordinance was 
drafted several years ago at your direction. I also note that you 
indicated support for our current proposal, and recall your telling 
me on several occasions that so long as the fee structure was 
sufficient, you were whole-heartedly in favor of the undertaking.  
Your change of heart is puzzling, at best.

Nobody disputes that we can facilitate the recapture of our 
neighborhoods, and encourage a greater degree of ownership, by 
pursuing a policy of strict adherence to building code. Adherence 
is best accomplished when accompanied by a series of systematic, 
mandatory inspections.   Asking property owners to voluntarily comply 
with code is much like asking automobile drivers to voluntarily follow 
the speed limit. Some will, but compliance is much more likely when 
the enforcement agencies are given the tools, such as radar, to 
accurately measure the level of compliance. Ordinance 1615 would have 
provided BHZ with the necessary tools to accomplish their extremely 
difficult, vitally important mission.

The question at hand is, "What do we do now?"

My intention is to introduce a motion to override your veto at our 
meeting of November 13. I do not expect that motion to find the 
required 4 votes, so I anticipate that your action will stand.

Unfortunately, that leaves us, and our citizens, with no relief from 
the continued decline in housing quality due to the insufficiency of 
compliance with our code. It perpetuates an unacceptable circumstance, 
and it is our duty as elected officials to work together to create a 
means of assuming the greatest level of compliance possible. Fortunately, 
the concerns expressed in the veto message give us the guidance to 
fulfill our obligation.

Therefore, I will redraft the ordinance to address the defects 
referenced in the veto letter.  The ordinance will contain an 
increased fee (satisfying your concern that the entire program 
be self-supporting), and will provide for a landlord-tenant council 
to deal with disputes between the two groups. The addition of this 
element should bring forth the cooperative effort you found wanting 
in Ordinance 1615.

The resolution of those two issues, which were the primary items of 
your concern, should allow you to affirm your support for the revised 
ordinance, and reaffirm your position of leadership in moving toward 
a better Salisbury. Our community can then move forward as one, toward 
achieving the goal of improving the quality of housing for our citizens.

I am confident that by adopting an attitude of cooperation and common 
sense, we can join the many other communities which have seen a 
dramatic improvement in the quality of housing and the ultimate 
rebirth of deteriorating neighborhoods.

Again, please accept my sincere wishes for a rapid recovery, and I 
look forward to seeing you back in top form soon.


						Very truly yours,


						Robert M. Caldwell
						President
						Salisbury City Council

RMC:bjc

October 26, 1995 Robert M. Caldwell 

[COMMENTS]

Return to Index