Code Enforcement Photos: Have You Seen These?

[Guest Not Steve]

So Mr. Jensen, what is your point? Is it that, because a lot of other people are violating city codes that its ok for you to do it as well? Or is it your point, that, of all the code violations in the City, the authorities have to get to yours last and process every one elses first, or at least do everyone elses at the exact same moment in time as they do yours? Or is it that they should ignore your violation because they aren't getting to everyone elses at the same time?

 

What exactly makes you so special? What, in principle, is wrong with them processing your violation before other peoples? Since they obviously don't have the manpower to process the zillions of code violations in this fair city of ours', why exactly can't they process your violation before some other people's? As a resident and taxpayer in Binghamton I'd like to see the city prosecute all of the code violators and scofflaws and get all the junk cars on residential property in the city .... including yours .... removed. I don't particularly care the sequence they follow to accomplish that goal. If the process is complaint-driven, they should follow the chronological order of complaints, which means that all of the cases you point out in your pictures need to get in line behind your own violation.

 

Stop whining and either get your car licensed or remove it from your property. The law that you're violating serves a very important purpose of keeping residential properties from turning into junkyards. Just because you think your clunker is some kind of a classic that deserves more consideration than any other unlicensed derelict beater doesn't make it so and doesn't mean that the City has to cut some slack for any deadbeat who comes up with the same bogus excuse. Take some personal responsibility and clean your own mess up before you start complaining about the messes created by other people .... you'll have more credibility then.

 

 

@

You obviously don't get it.

 

I'm not surprised.

 

 

@

[Guest SPJ]

To "Curious,"

 

Having read your post, I'm left with the impression that you haven't read everything I've said here. When you do, perhaps you'll understand my point(s).

 

And for what it's worth, I find it hard to believe that you don't care about priorities and the relativity of housing code violations.

 

The bottom line for me in all this is that, eventually, if required to, I'll do just as you suggest - I'll register my Corvette, take a few screws and affix two license plates. Then I'll put the car cover back over them, and absolutely nothing will change on my property. Not a lick.

 

Look, I don't claim to be special, personally. I'm not asking for political favors here. But frankly, the point of this exercise is that this law is, in its intent, has merit. As it's written, however, it's completely illogical.

 

If you drive around neighborhoods citywide, you'll see many cars without tags, left in the open, and in various stages of disrepair. Some are on blocks, without wheels, others have flat tires and rust as their most attractive features. Should there be a law on the books which keeps residents from stockpiling as many vehicles as they like, simply because this is America? I say yes, and that's where I part company with the poster who says people ought to be able to have whatever property they want on their land. Well, I say, there have got to be limits.

 

There are many municipalities nationwide where there's solid "junk vehicle" language. Some include whether or not the vehicle can move under its own power. Others refer to value, as far as a vehicle having more worth than the dollar amount it would garner as scrap metal (for an average car, that's probably in the $200-$400 range at Gary's U-Pull-It, for example). It's true that that sort of wording would have its debates, too, one centering on "one man's junk is another man's gold." But such a wording or wordings would certainly allow common sense to come into play.

 

I haven't driven through every neighborhood in the city yet, but in the past week, I've been in many. I'd take a ballpark guess that I've seen at least 50 unlicensed (without plates, at least) cars (not including trailers, campers, boats, jet skis) parked and stored in the open on properties, very viewable from the street. Are some if them junk? Absolutely, and those neighbors shouldn't be subjected to seeing these eyesores on a constant basis. But others aren't, and it's pretty clear to any rational observer.

 

I the near future, I'll be submitting a request for legislation that will attempt to change the language of this particular law. In the meantime, however, these pictures (and many more I'll post in the original link soon) serve as a reality check that the city's Code Enforcement Department needs to employ more common sense and establish some priorities as to what the real ills of our neighborhoods have become.

 

Again, if pushed to it, I'll place tags on my Corvette. And not a thing will change on my property. It won't need to get cleaned of debris (there isn't any), my structure won't need to be made safer (it already is), no windows will need to be replaced and no boarded entries will need to be repaired (none of that exists on my property). Instead, I'll have done as you, "Curious," suggest. I'll eventually have just complied, even if I think this particular law (which was enacted by the last City Council) is flawed.

-SPJ

 

 

 

 

 

 

[Guest SPJ]

To the poster who asked about student properties ...

 

There are a few, but while I haven't kept close tabs on the stats of my photos, I believe the vast majority of those properties pictured are NOT student housing properties.

 

I realize there are some student dwellings that are problematic for surrounding residents, but from what I've experienced, student-related housing code problems, at least on the surface, tend to revolve around garbage and porch furniture. Outside of that, I think the majority of complaints about student housing focus on parking and nighttime noise.

-SPJ

[Guest SPJ]

One more thing for "Curious" to consider ...

 

If you had only a cursory knowledge of city housing code, and that knowledge was based on simple observation and logic, and if I turned you loose on my property and asked you to fine ONE code violation, I'd place good odds that the one thing you'd choose wouldn't be a classic car in pretty good shape under a fitted car cover parked under a pretty nice car port.

-SPJ

[Guest Rennia doesn't care.]

I'm thinking that Mr. Jensen would have been a far better choice for our 3rd district Councilman. In fact, I'm certain of it.

 

When Mr. Jensen was Councilman, it seems like he was always involved in fighting the good fight to better our city. Always poking and prodding, and never letting the irresponsible and irrational ideas of our local government go unchallenged like they are now.

 

I haven't seen or heard of one positive thing Terry Rennia has accomplished since she started on council. Not one. Nothing.

 

 

 

 

 

[Guest Guest]

Wow!! You have one sharp eyed code enforcement officer!! He/she probably stood in back

of a house behind you and said "look at that junk car". Now what they like to do is for you to go

and do the leg work for them by going out searching and report others (and take pics) to prove

your case so all they have to do is show up at the other offenders house (that you found) and cite them.

I swear our CEO used to pay people to do this!!

[Guest Tired of Bs on BCVIOCE]

You people have way to much time on your hands get a life.

[Guest ACiD]

Just makes you wonder why a government official that is getting paid out of your tax dollars is wasting his (and our) time by citing properties that are in good shape, when there are so many obvious other areas to concentrate on... which is (I'm sure of) the whole point of this post and discussion.

 

A few years ago I went through a similar incident, but I lived in Tioga county. I had two cars, a summer 'hot-rod' and a fall/winter vehicle. I actually received my 'violation' during the summer when I had my hot-rod on the streets. Turns out some new neighbors moved in on a newly made road along our back yard and they turned me in for having a 'junk vehicle' The only thing was my 'junk' vehicle was just a 'parked vehicle' that was a 5 year old Honda Accord in just about mint shape, with no rust, flaws, not in any state of dis-assembly, etc... I also kept the car insured as a parked vehicle to keep glass and comprehensive coverage on it in case something fell and broke anything on it while being parked.

 

Now, the car was in what sounds like a similar spot to the OP here. My Honda was parked behind the house, underneath a covered deck, where you could 'barely' see the very back of it, and only if you went on the road behind us and on another persons property, it was NOT in any sort of plain view or just sitting out in the open.

 

 

To combat the ridiculousness of the cited violation, I took pictures of how my vehicle sat, took insurance records, took a picture of the still valid inspection sticker, took my vehicle registration transfer papers that I had copies of, and went to the town offices there on Rte 434. Funny part was, as soon as I showed them everything I had, explained the car was NOT a junk vehicle, but was driver 3/4 of the year and I had been doing the same thing for about 10 years without hassle, they apologized for the 'inconvenience' and dropped everything.

 

 

I guess what my question is, why does it seem that properties that are in obvious code violation don't seem to get cleared up or cited, when we know MULTIPLE complaints have been made on these properties. Yet, when a neighbor makes a complaint about a simple parked (not junk, but PARKED vehicle), they immediately cite the person without doing any sort of minute investigation on the complaint? I could see if a person has multiple unlicensed vehicles littering their properties, but be realistic people. We live in the Northeast where we have snow and icy winter weather. It is NOT uncommon at all for people to have a summer vehicle and winter vehicle that they transfer plates from each season.... there is nothing 'illegal' about this, especially if they are taking care to store the other car out of sight as best as possible.

 

 

Funny thing is for my situation, I had stored my 'other' car right out in f=my front yard for years without ever having a problem, it wasn't until a new housing development with a new road moved in that I suddenly had an issue. Everyone else on my road already knew it was not a 'junk' vehicle issue.

 

 

 

 

One more observation. Someone noted about the OP to mind his own business and stay off other people private property. If all his photos were taken while standing on the street, sidewalk or curb, those are all PUBLIC areas, and he has not violated anyone's 'private property' You remind me of the dumb-a$$ security guard from IBM I dealt with years ago when doing some documentary video in Endicott. I was shotting video of the IBM building with the clock on front on North Street and had 'stepped' off the sidewalk onto the IBM owned walkway , so a security guard came out to hassle me and tell me I could not shoot video. All I had to do was take two steps onto the 'public' sidewalk and then he could not longer tell me what to do... what a jerk. Funny part was it was a positive piece on the history of Endicott and the founders that built up the town, most notable IBM and EJ....

 

 

 

enough ranting!

ACiD

[Guest Guest]

You people have way to much time on your hands get a life.

 

Thats because we've either lost our jobs, or gas is too expensive to go anywhere or do anything!

[Guest Guest]

One of the pix is 3 city bags beside someones house. What's the deal with that? I don't get it....at least their trash is bagged and ready to go........

[Guest Guest]

I think the "problem" with the city bags in front of someone's house is that they are IN FRONT of their house. There's no covering, they're just tossed there on the side of the porch, in open view. Who wants to see bagged garbage, in ANY colored bag, sitting there as they drive by?

 

See, that's part of the trouble in this town. People have gotten too used to crap, so when they see 3-4 garbage bags stacked in front of a house, they say "what's the problem? At least it's in bags."

 

Our expectations have been lowered beyond what's reasonable in order for this town to make any realistic comeback.

 

What we NEED is for code enforcement to lead the charge, or at least be involved in the charge, rather than citing people who have what appears to be a pristine property, like Mr. Jensen's, with a car that is clearly cared for.

[Guest .]

One picture? You don't have a problem with ONE PICTURE, and that spurred you to respond? Did you see ALL THE OTHER PICTURES?

[Guest Guest]

One picture? You don't have a problem with ONE PICTURE, and that spurred you to respond? Did you see ALL THE OTHER PICTURES?

My aren't you a bit uptight today.

 

Yes, one picture spurred my question. What's the big deal? The other pictures, I can understand (well, most of them anyway) but a picture of garbage in bags waiting for garbage day? Come on, that pic is no different than Ed A. taking pictures of recyclable boxes on the curb on Saturday night. Puh-leeze. There are way worse violations than having a few bags of trash sitting by your porch.

 

 

@

[Guest G. Ligia]

Just noticed there are more pictures up. Awful!

http://s294.photobucket.com/albums/mm118/J...7-08/?start=all

 

[Guest Curious]

9011B0Mr. Jensen,

 

 

One person's "classic car" is another person's "junked vehicle". So you've got an old 'Vette. Wow. What's your basis going to be for fighting this case in court?

That your car is somehow different from everybody else's junk car even though they'll all maintain that their vehicles are in some way "special" too? Or is it your hope that the judge will be a gearhead who somehow agrees that the founding fathers didn''t really intend to include old 'vettes when they drafted the "unlicensed vehicle" ordinance? Sounds like you're simply peeved about being called out on an obvious code violation and in a snit you want to tie up the already overburdened court system with the ridiculous argument that 'vette owners are for some reason above the law and don't have to live by the same rules as everyone else. If you don't like the law as it's written then work to change it ..... until then, obey it.

 

A leader is someone who, first and foremost, leads by example. You're setting a bad one for your neighbors and fellow citizens by using the same argument that every other code violator uses: that somehow your situation is "special" and needs to be exempted from the regulations. The only message you're sending to current & potential violators is that it's ok to claim that the rules shouldn't apply to them and to similarly tie up the system needlessly while continuing to avoid cleaning up their violations. Based on your role modeling, every other person with a disabled vehicle on their lawn might feel emboldened to claim that their vehicle is a "classic" too, and that they shouldn't be made to license it or haul it away.

 

You say we need to use "common sense" when enforcing the "junked vehicle" law. What's your idea of common sense in this situation? - should the already cash-strapped City of Binghamton hire a panel of automotive experts to go over every unlicensed vehicle in the city on a case by case basis, to sort out the "classics" from the not so classics? And who will handle the inevitable appeals when someone feels that their beater got short shrift? I don't think that's common sense at all. Common sense calls for you to obey this very simple, very clear, and very well-intentioned law - no "unlicensed vehicles". It appears you don't want to do this and instead you prefer to make a mountain out of something that's less than a molehill in order to save the cost of licensing this vehicle and buying insurance for it.

 

In taking this approach you're missing a golden opportunity to lead by a positive example that will send the message to your fellow citizens that zoning and building & construction laws are important, that everyone should abide by them (work to change them if you don't agree with them, but until that time obey them) and that no one is exempt from them, not even politicians.

 

 

 

 

 

[Guest Guest]

You miss the point that if Jensen licenses the vehicle, which he said he will anyway (because it's the current law), it has changed nothing. He spelled that out for you.

 

You strike me as an intelligent person. Your posts at least show you can form sentences and thoughts to convey a point. What strikes me as odd about that is the irony of you simply not seeing Jensen's point at all.

 

You actually lay it on Jensen's doorstep, that he's intent to tie up the courts, despite the fact that there are hundreds of photos as evidence here saying THEY NEED to be in court, and yes, WAY before anything about Jensen's property.goes to court.

 

Yes. It should be a sliding scale. Jensen isn't the problem, and I don't recall him having asked to be a leader. In fact, he hasn't been involved in politics for years now. He's simply trying to make a point about what a problem code, and the (general lack of) enforcement in Binghamton, has become.

 

Many of us understand that. You do not.

[Guest H. Foote]

I agree with Jensen on this. He isn't a politician anymore. And by licensing his car he won't be sending a message to any of his neighbors because he said his neighbors aren't problems. Him licensing that vehicle won't make one difference to the scumbags who own properties in the pictures. This isn't Jensen's problem. It's a longtime problem with the enforcement of the city's housing code. As Barry Kaufmann has said for years, WHERE IS THE CODE?????

[Guest Guest]

Just noticed there are more pictures up. Awful!

http://s294.photobucket.com/albums/mm118/J...7-08/?start=all

 

 

9011B0Mr. Jensen,

 

 

One person's "classic car" is another person's "junked vehicle". So you've got an old 'Vette. Wow. What's your basis going to be for fighting this case in court?

That your car is somehow different from everybody else's junk car even though they'll all maintain that their vehicles are in some way "special" too? Or is it your hope that the judge will be a gearhead who somehow agrees that the founding fathers didn''t really intend to include old 'vettes when they drafted the "unlicensed vehicle" ordinance? Sounds like you're simply peeved about being called out on an obvious code violation and in a snit you want to tie up the already overburdened court system with the ridiculous argument that 'vette owners are for some reason above the law and don't have to live by the same rules as everyone else. If you don't like the law as it's written then work to change it ..... until then, obey it.

 

A leader is someone who, first and foremost, leads by example. You're setting a bad one for your neighbors and fellow citizens by using the same argument that every other code violator uses: that somehow your situation is "special" and needs to be exempted from the regulations. The only message you're sending to current & potential violators is that it's ok to claim that the rules shouldn't apply to them and to similarly tie up the system needlessly while continuing to avoid cleaning up their violations. Based on your role modeling, every other person with a disabled vehicle on their lawn might feel emboldened to claim that their vehicle is a "classic" too, and that they shouldn't be made to license it or haul it away.

 

You say we need to use "common sense" when enforcing the "junked vehicle" law. What's your idea of common sense in this situation? - should the already cash-strapped City of Binghamton hire a panel of automotive experts to go over every unlicensed vehicle in the city on a case by case basis, to sort out the "classics" from the not so classics? And who will handle the inevitable appeals when someone feels that their beater got short shrift? I don't think that's common sense at all. Common sense calls for you to obey this very simple, very clear, and very well-intentioned law - no "unlicensed vehicles". It appears you don't want to do this and instead you prefer to make a mountain out of something that's less than a molehill in order to save the cost of licensing this vehicle and buying insurance for it.

 

In taking this approach you're missing a golden opportunity to lead by a positive example that will send the message to your fellow citizens that zoning and building & construction laws are important, that everyone should abide by them (work to change them if you don't agree with them, but until that time obey them) and that no one is exempt from them, not even politicians.

" If you don't like the law as it's written then work to change it ..... "

 

I believe that's exactly what he is trying to do. I guess you didn't read the whole thread.

[Guest Guest]

Greetings ...

 

Some of you may already know my recent saga. Long story short, my '81 Corvette, tucked behind my house, under a car port, and wrapped nicely in a fitted car cover, was, in January, cited by Binghamton code official Chris Schleider as a "junk car" stored in the open, "under tarp."

 

According to the law that appears on the books, I learned that my car actually is a "junk vehicle," which, of course, is silliness. I appeared in court a couple weeks ago and pleaded "not guilty" to get a hearing, coming up in April. In the meantime, I'll attempt to make the point that while I appreciate strict code enforcement, common sense must prevail, and ultimately, the language of this particular law must reflect that intelligence.

 

Keep in mind when you view the photos I've taken around the city (most, to date, on or near the West Side), many of these are chronic problems that have remained apparent housing code violations for YEARS.

 

I'll continue to update the photo album(s) I've created (I have about 50-75 more photos yet to be added, with many more to come), and so far, there is 1. the main page with more than 100 possible violations, almost all viewable from the curb, 2. my "junk vehicle," which was not a complaint-driven issue by any neighbor, but a walk-by violation written by Mr. Schleider, and 3. several instances of graffiti in the city (I understand the city now has a "graffiti abatement coordinator," who appears to need assistance in locating graffiti to abate).

 

Do you think these are code violations?

http://s294.photobucket.com/albums/mm118/Jensen1964/

 

-SPJ

cann you imagine the scum that live in these hell holes? do they really deserve any better? if they do, it would look just like these in a very short time.

[Guest Guest]

I truly feel bad for the children who have nio choice but to live in some of these properties.

 

I wonder how many welfare recipients inhabit these lovely dwellings. How appropriate for so many to be here and thriving while Joe Sanfilippo announces he'll run for yet ANOTHER term on the BC Legislature.

 

 

[Guest Guest]

Greetings ...

 

Some of you may already know my recent saga. Long story short, my '81 Corvette, tucked behind my house, under a car port, and wrapped nicely in a fitted car cover, was, in January, cited by Binghamton code official Chris Schleider as a "junk car" stored in the open, "under tarp."

 

According to the law that appears on the books, I learned that my car actually is a "junk vehicle," which, of course, is silliness. I appeared in court a couple weeks ago and pleaded "not guilty" to get a hearing, coming up in April. In the meantime, I'll attempt to make the point that while I appreciate strict code enforcement, common sense must prevail, and ultimately, the language of this particular law must reflect that intelligence.

 

Keep in mind when you view the photos I've taken around the city (most, to date, on or near the West Side), many of these are chronic problems that have remained apparent housing code violations for YEARS.

 

I'll continue to update the photo album(s) I've created (I have about 50-75 more photos yet to be added, with many more to come), and so far, there is 1. the main page with more than 100 possible violations, almost all viewable from the curb, 2. my "junk vehicle," which was not a complaint-driven issue by any neighbor, but a walk-by violation written by Mr. Schleider, and 3. several instances of graffiti in the city (I understand the city now has a "graffiti abatement coordinator," who appears to need assistance in locating graffiti to abate).

 

Do you think these are code violations?

http://s294.photobucket.com/albums/mm118/Jensen1964/

 

-SPJ

 

Yes, they are very ugly photos. In a perfect world, a few citations would clean up the whole mess. .... those citations are usually insitgated by a complaining neighbor or group of neighbors. Unfortunately the squeeky wheel gets the grease ..... I do think you have tried somewhat to mislead, however. I did not see a single stored vehicle in any of the photographs. Isn't that the problem here ? The violation was about unused vehicles - and is pretty standard in all local communities. Second, and I truly don't mean to diminish the horrible mess pictured at these homes, but, you've posted multiple photos of the same houses - did you do that just to make it seem more rampant a problem?

 

 

@

[PARMELEE]

9011B0Mr. Jensen,

 

 

One person's "classic car" is another person's "junked vehicle". So you've got an old 'Vette. Wow. What's your basis going to be for fighting this case in court?

That your car is somehow different from everybody else's junk car even though they'll all maintain that their vehicles are in some way "special" too? Or is it your hope that the judge will be a gearhead who somehow agrees that the founding fathers didn''t really intend to include old 'vettes when they drafted the "unlicensed vehicle" ordinance? Sounds like you're simply peeved about being called out on an obvious code violation and in a snit you want to tie up the already overburdened court system with the ridiculous argument that 'vette owners are for some reason above the law and don't have to live by the same rules as everyone else. If you don't like the law as it's written then work to change it ..... until then, obey it.

 

A leader is someone who, first and foremost, leads by example. You're setting a bad one for your neighbors and fellow citizens by using the same argument that every other code violator uses: that somehow your situation is "special" and needs to be exempted from the regulations. The only message you're sending to current & potential violators is that it's ok to claim that the rules shouldn't apply to them and to similarly tie up the system needlessly while continuing to avoid cleaning up their violations. Based on your role modeling, every other person with a disabled vehicle on their lawn might feel emboldened to claim that their vehicle is a "classic" too, and that they shouldn't be made to license it or haul it away.

 

You say we need to use "common sense" when enforcing the "junked vehicle" law. What's your idea of common sense in this situation? - should the already cash-strapped City of Binghamton hire a panel of automotive experts to go over every unlicensed vehicle in the city on a case by case basis, to sort out the "classics" from the not so classics? And who will handle the inevitable appeals when someone feels that their beater got short shrift? I don't think that's common sense at all. Common sense calls for you to obey this very simple, very clear, and very well-intentioned law - no "unlicensed vehicles". It appears you don't want to do this and instead you prefer to make a mountain out of something that's less than a molehill in order to save the cost of licensing this vehicle and buying insurance for it.

 

In taking this approach you're missing a golden opportunity to lead by a positive example that will send the message to your fellow citizens that zoning and building & construction laws are important, that everyone should abide by them (work to change them if you don't agree with them, but until that time obey them) and that no one is exempt from them, not even politicians.

Oh looky here.....Let's take bets.....I'm giving odds 2 to 1 this is Tarik and company...

 

 

@

[Guest Old School]

For "Old School" ...

 

http://s294.photobucket.com/albums/mm118/J...My%20violation/

 

This series of photos (linked from the original link in my thread-starter) shows the Corvette uncovered (you can see it's not junk - it needs brakes and work on the shift linkage), and covered as it sits at this very minute. My home is not in "disrepair," and I believe the photos here give you a general idea, if not the full scope.

-SPJ

Thanx for the pix, and it's apparent the property is well maintained. The history of supposed "junk cars" in NY extend much further north than here. The requirement of insurance and a license plate have forced many vintage vehicles to the salvage yard. I'm surprised your 'vette, stored as it is, has become a target for code enforcement. When we were kids, my father's driveway became a storage facility for a "67 Opel", a '68 Dodge Charger, a "54 MGBG, a '67 Caddilac Sedan DeVille, and a Ford Falcon station wagon. The Falcon started every day, the Charger was HOT S_IT, and the Caddy had awhole lotta room. While we were away, in the Navy or college, Dad had to get rid of the excess vehicles. To this day, I wish I had any of the vehicles to work on. Stay the course, but it's probably impossible to find rotors that haven't already turned for an '81 Vette.

 

[Guest SPJ]

In response to the poster who said I'm misleading by not showing others unlicensed cars ...

 

I mentioned earlier that I have, to this point, purposely NOT photographed those vehicles. I've driven past an estimated 30-40 vehicles that most rational people would deem ready for the scrap heap, but I've stayed away from those. Why it's misleading that I've done that, I'm not sure. If I'd have taken all those photos, wouldn't it bolster my point? That there are numerous vehicles that ARE junk, out in the open, on blocks, in various states of disrepair?

-SPJ

[Guest SPJ]

Also, responding to that same person's question about "multiple photos" of the same property ... I'm not intending to mislead with that either. In some I'm showing an overview, followed by a close-up of what I perceive to be a code issue (some may not be clear from a distant view).

 

In others where I've photographed the same property more than once (such as a couple with varying views of porches, or different angles on a building), my intent is to show either 1. perspective, based on the way someone might approach a property, and 2. the numerous code violation possibilities (again, on a porch, there might be an old washer or dryer stored, while at the same time, the porch itself is a code issue).

-SPJ

 

 

@