Providence City Council Meeting | July 29th 2024
Call to Order and Roll Call
Chairman Espinal called the Committee on Ordinances meeting to order. A roll call was conducted and a quorum was established with five members present.
Item 1: Ordinance Amending Chapter 13 Housing (Multi-Unit Dwellings)
The committee discussed a proposed ordinance requiring owners of multi-unit residential properties to provide local contact information. Sponsor Councilwoman Peterson explained the measure, followed by public comments representing both property owners opposing the registry and affordable housing advocates supporting it.
Item 2: Ordinance Amending Chapter 23 (Public Parking)
The clerk introduced a proposed ordinance adding Article IX to Chapter 23 regarding public parking. Councilman Vargas provided brief remarks on the measure, and no public testimony was given.
Item 3: Zoning Ordinance Amendment and Recess
The committee moved to enter Substitute A into the record and voted to continue the zoning ordinance amendment until September 10 to allow further public engagement. The committee then adjourned the first session and took a recess until 6:30 PM.
Reconvening and Roll Call
The committee reconvened at 6:30 PM for its second scheduled session. The clerk conducted a roll call confirming all five committee members were present.
Petition for Zone Change (170 Gano St and 38 Amy St) and Adjournment
The committee reviewed a petition requesting a zone change from R-3 to R-4 for properties at 170 Gano Street and 38 Amy Street, voting unanimously to approve the recommendation. Following the vote, a motion to adjourn was approved, concluding the meeting.
Unknown
-
Good evening, and welcome to committee and ordinance. The time is 05:43, and tonight is Monday, July 29. Madam clerk, roll call, please.
Unknown
-
Chairman Espinal? Present. Vice chairwoman Peterson? Present. Councilwoman Harris?
Unknown
-
Councilman Vargas? Present. Councilor Royas? Present. You have five present.
Unknown
-
You have a quorum.
Unknown
-
Thank you. Madam clerk, item number one, please.
Unknown
-
Item number one is an ordinance amending chapter 13 housing of the Providence Code of Ordinances to add article nine multi unit dwellings.
Unknown
-
Thank you. Do we have anybody speaking on item number one? The sponsor of the bill, Councilwoman Peterson, please.
Unknown
-
Thank you very much. Bear with me while I gather my my findings on this particular one. This ordinance change or add on, I would call it, is specifically asking that our larger property owners carrying six or more dwellings be able to provide name and phone number of a local person to be able to address issues that perhaps might take on a little bit longer. This all came about... And I should preface this that I've done a lot of research and sought out a lot of information.
Unknown
-
We did receive a lot of opposition on this particular thing. And I'd like to make sure that I address certain things that were brought up in the opposition. This is simply name and contact information of a local person. And if not complied to, would require a fine that is at the discretion of DIS up to $500 per day. That's not necessarily exactly what DIS would deem correct.
Unknown
-
That is up to their discretion. One of the things that I think this does is it allows us to be able to have a better partnership with our larger developers as we continue to navigate what our spaces in our neighborhoods look like. Oftentimes, the process for DIS takes up to... Starts... On a good day, it would take thirty days for something as simple as a code violation for overgrown grass.
Unknown
-
Where something like this could actually allow us to have better communication with somebody that is local that can address the needs of the constituents surrounding them. It allows us to a, have as I mentioned, better partnership. But also collaboration. And it allows us to be able to afford our constituents a better way to address their concerns as they see them at their local level and they're looking at them daily. Oftentimes, because so many of our properties, these larger properties or entities are deemed with or registered with LLCs, we don't have that direct information available to us.
Unknown
-
When I do believe that creating an open and honest approach for collaboration would be much easier. Allows this a chance and it allows us a chance to try and avoid a potential situation where there's a code enforcement violation and the clock starts ticking for fines and fees. And it really just enhances the approach of us supporting the quality of life requests and needs that constituents always ask of us. I have sought out collaboration and understanding from DIS to understand if this would be something that was above and beyond. And they are very much in support of something like this.
Unknown
-
It allows us to be able, like I said, to create that partnership that we're looking for. I've asked for the administration to seek out information and just let us know if there was any feedback that they could give us to make this a little bit better. And from a administration point, this seems like a good fit for something that we should be doing going forward. I wanna dispel a few things that we received as opposition so that I can make certain things clear. One of the things that was said was that the tax assessor's database already houses this.
Unknown
-
I can confirm to you that not everybody provides this information. And the tax assessor's database does not have local contact information for every property within the parameters of this ordinance. The other thing that was asked of us was, is this duplicative of the lead registry that is going to... That has been approved at the state level? The lead registry is asking for very different information.
Unknown
-
I'm very much asking... This ordinance is very much asking for contact information of a local person with name and phone number only. The lead registry asks for a lot of other information that does not apply to this particular ordinance.
Unknown
-
And we
Unknown
-
are not at this time aware of or assure that municipalities can actually obtain that information. So this isn't duplicative of anything. It's not a redundant thing. This is actually something that hasn't been put on our books before. And it hasn't been presented at the state level in this way before.
Unknown
-
I wanna make sure that anybody that has questions, I'm available here. But I do wanna put forward that I think this is a good opportunity for us to do some great information... Do some great things with the city. And also have a good camaraderie between our newer development that are starting, our local developers that are already here, and having... And being able to help and support our constituents and their tenants and the landlords here as well, I think is a good step forward for all of us.
Unknown
-
Thank you.
Unknown
-
Thank you, counsel Peterson. City sergeant, do we have anybody that signed up to speak on item number one? Thank you. At Steven Lewiston Good evening.
Unknown
-
Evening.
Unknown
-
Can you
Unknown
-
hear me okay?
Unknown
-
Yes.
Unknown
-
So, my name is Steven Lewenstein, and I live at 61 Ledge Road in Newport, Rhode Island. And, I own a little over 600 well maintained, I might add, apartments on the East Side Of Providence. I'm in opposition to the proposed ordinance for the following reasons. It is virtually a duplication of the statewide registry statute, Rhode Island Statute 30 four-eighteen-fifty eight, enacted last year, which basically requires the same information as this ordinance is requiring. So, I say, Why not wait and see if this available information does the trick for what you feel you need to get what you want to get accomplished?
Unknown
-
Furthermore, why add unnecessary administrative expense to the building department? Because they are going to probably have to hire people to gather the information, monitor it, and administrate it when you may not have to do that. And I'm sure it's not in the mayor's existing budget. There are also, I think, some legal issues here. I believe the ordinance is probably unconstitutional.
Unknown
-
It would be overturned in the court of law for the following reasons. I think confiscatory $500 a day fines for not registering with the money going to support low income housing is not legal in my opinion. In addition, making public record of owners' addresses and phone numbers and subject them to possible harassment from tenants or others, as opposed to getting access to the property manager's information and contact numbers, to me, makes no sense. It's the property managers that basically can make this all work if you need to get things done. It's not the owners.
Unknown
-
It's the property managers who are running the properties that should be contacted by you, and it's their information that you should have as opposed to information of owners that really are not involved in the day to day management of the properties. That's pretty much all I have to say.
Unknown
-
Thank you so much, Steven. Harrison, Villadue?
Unknown
-
Thank you for holding this meeting. Before I make my very brief statement, I wanna call your attention to an article, to a letter in your packet from the Providence Apartment Association. This would be presented by Greg Weiss tonight. However, he is with his family attending to his dying grandmother, and... But I wanted to mention his name.
Unknown
-
I believe this ordinance is duplication of the state registry that is already in existence. You've just heard 34 dash 1858. In other words, it is redundant as it already exists. It is an injudicious ordinance and that it lacks judicial review or clear guidelines, which is mentioned in your packet by approximately 40 to 50 people who wrote in in opposition. Finally, it has already been passed.
Unknown
-
I mean, it's... It is a punitive ordinance. Stated purpose is to impose significant penalties of high... By raising high funds for housing stock. And I'd like finally to say it has already been surpassed.
Unknown
-
I believe it should be put to rest in the graveyard of well meaning but unnecessary ordinances. Please do not approve this ordinance. It is a late entry in a race that has already been won by state law thirty four fourteen fifty eight. Thank you.
Unknown
-
Thank you. Next, have Rose Segal.
Unknown
-
Hello, committee members. Thank you for hearing our testimony and our thoughts this evening. I would like to object to this ordinance for several reasons. In addition to what everyone has mentioned that it already duplicates the required state registry in order for the city to then institute an ordinance like this in a city that has stupendous bills and gives tax credits to billionaires, you would have to hire somebody and spend money in order to administer a completely duplicated registry. Point two, an uninformed owner who registers with...
Unknown
-
At the state level and might not register at the city level would be punished even if they have no property violations and their properties are in excellent condition, and it seems extremely punitive. Point number three, rents are already really, really high in this city. It is an issue. Six unit properties are taxed at a significantly higher rate. My house, it's a two family.
Unknown
-
This year, I qualified for the elderly exemption. As a result, my property taxes went down a little bit. My insurance went up a little bit. My tenants rents stayed the same. A couple blocks away, I have a six family house.
Unknown
-
In three years, the city Of Providence property taxes went from $9,017 a year to over $28,090 a year. That was a 311% increase plus a small insurance increase means that in the past three years each one of those properties pays an additional $615 a month. That's how much the rent has had to go up to stay current with the Providence City property taxes and a small insurance increase. So this ordinance with exorbitant fines even if people have no violations on their property is going to be a burden to tenants because property owners are going to raise the rents because they don't wanna be foreclosed and they don't wanna... Their property to end up in the City Of Providence tax sales, and they don't want the property boarded up and people losing houses.
Unknown
-
There's already a housing shortage. So this proposition is just going to completely exacerbate rents and rental units available. Next,
Unknown
-
I
Unknown
-
I wanna say something. Well, I'll warn you right before I get to it. But this particular ordinance says in section 13 dash 65 b, registration shall shall consist of the following information. One, property owner's address which shall not be a PO box. This past legislative season, I have been at the state house to testify against some egregious proposed legislation.
Unknown
-
As a result, I and some of my colleagues have been targeted by nonprofits. There have been outright lies posted online about me, postering in the neighborhood about me, and I stepped outside of my house to walk my dogs and somebody called out my name. And when I turned around, and you may wanna cover your ears, you fucking slumlord cunt. I hope you die in a fire. This was from somebody I did not know.
Unknown
-
From that type of
Unknown
-
I will not, under any circumstances, provide my home address. I am a single female, and I was very shook up and threatened by that. So I would request that you do not pass this ordinance. Thank you.
Unknown
-
You're welcome. Thank you. Next is Jamil. 243 Broadway. Oh, Janice.
Unknown
-
First and last name for the record, please.
Unknown
-
My name is Janice. I've been a landlord in Providence. My name is Janice. I've been a landlord in Providence forty years. I would like to request that you not pass this well meaning but duplicative ordinance.
Unknown
-
I think the previous speakers have spoken about the state registry that's gonna be effective October 1. As you know, the tax bills go to, the property owners, and, the city's never had trouble tracking me down when necessary. My tenants all have my cell phone. However, as a female, I also don't want my information out in the general public. My other question is how much is it gonna cost the city of Providence to try to administer this duplicative ordinance?
Unknown
-
I figure it would take at least two persons at a salary of roughly 50,000 plus each. We already pay extremely high taxes. As landlords, we try to do everything we possibly can to keep our rents down. Of course, real estate taxes have been going up. They have to.
Unknown
-
Insurance costs have tremendously, etcetera. And I've been in business for forty years. I would like to see the administrative requirements reduced, not increased. I also feel that $500 a day for a paper requirement, it goes well beyond what would be reasonable. So again, I'd like to ask you not to pass this ordinance.