In the Dec. 24 story “Vandergrift to vote on tougher rules for landlords, tenants,” I read with amazement that council wants to require rental-property owners who live 15 miles or more outside the borough to have a property manager.
Don't get me wrong — I fully support having rental owners step up to the plate when it comes to managing and maintaining their property. What amazes me was the quote from Councilman James Rametta: “The only thing really changing is the enforcement aspect.”
How does the borough plan to enforce this ordinance when they can't enforce the ones currently on the books? I have gone to the borough office several times — and even to a council meeting — over that past six years about the enforcement of the junk vehicle ordinance. I even wrote a letter to this paper, “Vandergrift”s selective enforcement” (April 7, 2013). Despite this, the junk vehicles remain at Byers Taxi & Byers Busing, although the ordinance states the vehicles must be removed with 96 hours.
This is the borough failing to enforce this ordinance on behalf of someone it knows, Julie Martin, owner of Byers Taxi, who is involved in the Vandergrift Improvement Program. Is this how she improves Vandergrift, by violating the junk vehicle ordinance? Is this how our officials plan to improve the borough?
I also find it amazing that Councilman Lenny Collini, who lives across the street from Byers Taxi, has seen this violation every day for the past four or five years, but does nothing.
I wonder if the new ordinance will have selective enforcement too.
James H. Dunmire
Show commenting policy
TribLive commenting policy
You are solely responsible for your comments and by using TribLive.com you agree to our Terms of Service.
We moderate comments. Our goal is to provide substantive commentary for a general readership. By screening submissions, we provide a space where readers can share intelligent and informed commentary that enhances the quality of our news and information.
While most comments will be posted if they are on-topic and not abusive, moderating decisions are subjective. We will make them as carefully and consistently as we can. Because of the volume of reader comments, we cannot review individual moderation decisions with readers.
We value thoughtful comments representing a range of views that make their point quickly and politely. We make an effort to protect discussions from repeated comments either by the same reader or different readers.
We follow the same standards for taste as the daily newspaper. A few things we won't tolerate: personal attacks, obscenity, vulgarity, profanity (including expletives and letters followed by dashes), commercial promotion, impersonations, incoherence, proselytizing and SHOUTING. Don't include URLs to Web sites.
We do not edit comments. They are either approved or deleted. We reserve the right to edit a comment that is quoted or excerpted in an article. In this case, we may fix spelling and punctuation.
We welcome strong opinions and criticism of our work, but we don't want comments to become bogged down with discussions of our policies and we will moderate accordingly.
We appreciate it when readers and people quoted in articles or blog posts point out errors of fact or emphasis and will investigate all assertions. But these suggestions should be sent via e-mail. To avoid distracting other readers, we won't publish comments that suggest a correction. Instead, corrections will be made in a blog post or in an article.
- Blame misdirected
- Voters capable
- Scapegoating easy; solutions not
- Progress not reflected
- Steel at stake, too
- Pedro must go
- Not taxpayers’ responsibility
- Don’t blame bus drivers I
- Lawsuit: Publicity stunt
- Reverse red-kettle ban I
- Help for Tina