Laserfiche WebLink
Mr. Poling asked if the council was talking about housing standards as they related to living conditions, or <br />exterior beautification. He also wanted clarification about what was intended. <br /> <br />Ms. Nathanson said she could not support the motion as offered. If the council was already scheduled to <br />talk about the issue, it needed to see a scope of work and have staff assess the scope of the problem, the <br />problems that exist, how many times problems happened, and where. She questioned the impact of such a <br />program on rents, and if renters were really willing to pay more for the service as had been asserted by <br />some. She asked if the City had consulted the Human Rights Commission or Centro LatinoAmericano, for <br />example, regarding that subject. Ms. Nathanson did not think the City could afford to duplicate what had <br />been done. <br /> <br />Ms. Taylor said the council did not have to decide what it wanted in a housing code at this time, but it could <br />determine the item was important enough to place on the priority list. She thought the Corvallis model and <br />former Eugene housing code could be examined as a start. She said that the State statute did not work <br />unless people had money to go to court. Ms. Taylor thought something local was needed. <br /> <br />Mr. Pap~ thought the intent of the motion was wonderful, but the community had requested money for other <br />services. He cited the cattery as an example. He said the council needed to prioritize City expenditures. He <br />expressed concern that what was being contemplated would affect several divisions and require additional <br />resources. Mr. Pap~ needed to know more about the scope of what was envisioned before voting for the <br />motion. <br /> <br />Mayor Torrey indicated opposition to the motion, but said he supported holding a work session on the topic <br />so the council could hear more about the scope of work required to implement a housing code. He said that <br />there was no need for haste. Mayor Torrey noted he had done some investigation of housing codes and <br />found that most were designed to thwart criminal activity. That was not the focus of those advocating for a <br />housing code. He believed the council was moving too fast on something he had only begun to receive e- <br />mail about in the last two weeks, and that it was not appropriate to push the item to the top of the priority <br />list at this time. <br /> <br />Speaking to Mayor Torrey's comments, Mr. Kelly disagreed the council was moving too fast. He said he <br />began to receive e-mails on the topic two years ago. The joint task force took weeks of meetings to discuss <br />the subject. Its final report addressed the Corvallis model, and that was what he wished to accomplish. <br /> <br />By way of moving forward, Mr. Kelly withdrew his original amendment and offered another. <br /> <br /> Mr. Kelly, seconded by Ms. Bettman, moved to amend the high priority <br /> work program with the development and adoption of housing habitability <br /> standards similar to the Corvallis model. <br /> <br />Mr. Kelly noted that the $10 per unit charge assessed by Corvallis was a yearly, not a monthly charge. <br /> <br />Mayor Torrey made the determination that the motion represented a friendly amendment to the prior motion. <br /> <br />Ms. Nathanson said the change did not elicit her support. She suggested the council was asking the wrong <br /> <br />MINUTES--Eugene City Council February 9, 2004 Page 8 <br /> Work Session <br /> <br /> <br />