Democracy In Albany

I am no fan of Sano, Igoe and company.  I think their position on most issues is dead wrong, but there is an old saying involving dogs and the sun that I think is somewhat applicable here.

Albany has been blessed with the fact that we have been able to maintain several historic neighborhoods, despite the best efforts of our illustrious mayor, Sano, Igoe and others (Michael Brown comes to mind - thank God he's gone).

I've rarely found your comments objectionable, but this one smacks of ignorance.

"We should not ruin these beautiful neighborhoods with unsightly window guards because some people are too stupid to be parents."

I suppose you find pleasing to the eye all those historic buildings with their burglar bars?

Yours kinda reminds me of the position taken by the auto manufacturers back in the eary sixties regarding mandatory seat belts and again two decades later regarding air bags. And we have laws in effect which penalize those who choose not to use seat belts. So why is that? Is it because those who choose not to use them are being punished for their stupidity, for choosing comfort over safety?

No need for them because only stupid drivers have accidents and oh, the cost!

Young parents aren't given a book of rules on proper parenting, whatever that is, and they do make mistakes. Sometimes and tragically, those mistakes result in the death of their child.

The window guards should be required on all windows above the first storey in all buildings.

Unlike burglar bars, they are all easily removable and those housholds without children can store them away if they choose not to utilize them.

Those councilmen should be ashamed for taking what I believe is an indefensible position. The fire dept. too. they pose no significant obstacle to the tools of their trade and they know it.

The landlords' costs will be passed on to tenants, as they do with most, if not all their improvemnts, so cost is a non-issue too.

I admit that I do not know how enforcement would occur during occupancy, unless discovered when an inspection is called for by the tenant reporting deficiencies.

So what is needed is effective code enforcement, but I see DIA has already mentioned this.

2) No matter how hard as a society we try, we simply cannot idiot proof our properties.

Whats next? Manditory gates across all stairs? After all there are 3x as many injuries to small children falling down stairs as there are falling out of windows.

In 1998 there were 5,000 injuries reported nation wide caused when kids fell out of windows.  

There were 230,000 injuries caused on playgrounds.  

Maybe we should outlaw playgrounds.

In 1998 there were 12,000 injuries from kids falling off of bleachers.  

Maybe we should outlaw bleachers.  

I was told by a city official that there are over 27,000 rented and unrented rental units in Albany.  How many windows would have to have guards? 200,000? 300,000? I think it is fair to say that it would cost MILLIONS to impliment this.

When you couple that with the proposal to increase code inspections to every time a unit turns over I don't think that you have to be a "rocket scientist" to realize that this is going to be very expensive and we simply cannot afford it.

I guess we have all come so far down the road of bullshit politics in this town that even analyzing an issue like this has become damn near impossible.   I haven't seen the central issues properly addressed in this thread. So here are the issues as I see them:

1.  Code enforcement in Albany has been, and continues to be, a shambles, resulting in untold numbers of crappy unsafe rental units for which, frequently on the government tit by reason of Section 8 payments, landlords are collecting market rents.  The rents are sufficient to allow code compliance, it just doesn't happen.

2. Assuring the provision of basic safe housing is a local government duty, as part of its responsibility for public health and safety.

3. We haven't had the governmental aptitude, nor political engagement, nor a culture of responsible public service in Albany, to do this for a very long time.  The whole shebang is corrupt from one end to the other. Both the Common Council, and the School Board, our apparent, but fake, access to representative democracy, and our taxing authorities, are rubber stamp sewing parties, with now and then a little political theater thrown in. This window guard initiative is political theater, nothing more, while our city burns.

4. Correcting the governmental Codes issue is basic to the survival of this city. Halting steps in this direction are being made.  It is a complex and expensive task, both for government and taxpaying property owners, without adding more issues and costs to the mix.  So Dominick the Donkey waltzes in with this monkey wrench, to: a) play show-boat and pander to the feel-good voter block; b) show up those on the Council who are attempting to be adult, now and then;  and c) make some feel-good no-cost press for himself.  If anything tells me he shouldn't be Mayor, this is it.  Same bullshit, different donkey.

5. My post above, to AlfredM,  quoting:

First Layman responds that my question is ideological. Wrong word, Layman, but cute, since by using it you imply the basis of my query is limited, theoretical, and thereby impractical and fanciful.  Actually you are the ideologue in the woodpile, not I: the world cannot be made child-proof, but let's legislate anyways, ignore and complicate our real problems, and spend someone else's money. [Actually, a lot of the money would be tax money, as it would just be passed on as rent to the big deep pockets everyone knows government has.] Liberal feel-good politics is an ideology, Layman, I'm just talking about common sense, history, reality, and money.

So then Layman throws in the child safety seat red herring, as if there's some remote correspondence between a car going 60 with a kid in it, and a window in a residence with a child near it. The kid in the car will end up jelly upon impact, whether the parent is a responsible driver or not.  No parental supervision necessary. The kid by the window is either supervised or otherwise protected by a parent or surrogate, and none of them are going 60.  Do you see the difference, Layman?

AlfredM:  No, I wasn't talking , quoting you, about "...'po black folk are irresponsible...", but, quoting myself again, "... that portion of the population we have encouraged, for a half-century, not to be responsible parents."  White or of color, rich or poor, it doesn't matter: we have, by this sort of bullshit feel-good politics in the place and stead of honest work by our elected representatives, steadily diminished the necessary cultural imperative to parents for the healthy and safe rearage of their children, upon the mistaken notion that somehow the State has a better idea, or means, as to those responsibilities than the individual parents.  Culturally toxic politics for self-serving political gain.  We have, in the process, devalued parents and parenting to the extent that a large percentage of newborns are both illegitimate, and destined to grow up in single parent households with a statistical certainty of poverty and illiteracy (40% in Albany) and jail.  Great, huh? This is not about "class issues" but about stupid politics and stupid government and corrupt political parties which deign not to state the issues and argue them publicly but rather avoid discourse and hence responsibility with this sort of crap issue.  But, if political hay can be made, hey! why not?

You are right as far as this is an ideological argument. You are advocating for something that is a large and needless expense and will make thousands of landlords vicariously libel in future lawsuits all because literally a couple of people acted in an irresponsible and criminally negligent manner.

This is just another component of the ideology argument that thinks that one class of people should pay dearly for the irresponsible actions and stupidity of others.

If you can't see it for what it is then I guess that you are right. We will have to disagree.

Personally I don't care what New York City Housing Laws dictate. I don't live there and after talking to friends who rent there I am not sure why anyone would want to be a landlord or invest a nickel.

I am surprised that you would think that what NYC does is relevant here.  The housing stock is substantially different from ours.

I can see where window guards there would make sense. Most of their housing stock is made up of multi story apartment buildings surrounded by pavement with a substantial number of children living above the second floor.  There is a slight difference in falling out a second story window vs. falling out of an apartment on the 10th floor.  Any fall above 35 feet is generally not considered survivable. Especially if you are hitting pavement.

A substantial number of buildings in NYC are generally of "fire proof" masonry construction. All have fire walls, fire stairs, fire escapes, central alarm systems and sprinklers.  I would expect that it would be rare for someone to actually be trapped in a burning building there.  Windows generally wouldn't be expected to be a secondary means of egress in the event of a fire.

Albany is a completely different story.  Most of our rental units are made up of small town houses that are two or maybe three stories tall. A fair number of our rental properties have yards and shrubs.  If a child falls out of a second or third floor window the fall will probably result in an injury, not death.  Again there is a slight difference between what happens when child drops 16 feet vs. 100.

A substantial percentage of Albany's housing stock is also made up of wood framed buildings. These do not have fire proof stairwells, most do not have exterior fire escapers or sprinkler systems. A fair number of them are also of a balloon framed construction and if you know what a Hartford Loop is then I bet you understand what fire traps many of our buildings actually are.  

You probably also would understand that window guards will present a physical and psychological barrier to someone who is panicking because their house is one fire.

The simple truth is what saves lives in New York City will probably cost lives here in Albany.

We are not talking about car seats, are we?  What is applicable in transportation is not necessarily applicable in housing, is it?  

Your argument is not valid because in an a car you are exposed to a completely different set of risk factors then when you are in your apartment.

Child safety seats are an appropriate safety accessory.

Mr. Corning, "Why isn't there such outrage when an uninsured person dies because they do not have access to health care?"

Ah, but there is. But most folks who learn of such things care little for those living and dying in poverty and even less about alleviating the ravages of poverty they endure.

Al N., "1) Windows are a secondary means of egress in the event of a fire. Putting gaurds over the windows will either create a physical barrier- if the gaurds are physically attatched to the window frame, or a psychological barrier. You know- the house is on fire and the windows have bars."

Most window guards easily swing out of the way and pose no more of a barrier, psychological or physical, to those seeking egress than does the window itself with its glass and latch.

"Maybe we should outlaw playgrounds." "Maybe we should outlaw bleachers." Has someone suggested outlawing windows, Al?

Acknowledging they serve the "greater good" of our society, we have enacted housing and building codes and have long recognized the need for such regulation. There are always those though, who ignore such regulations whenever it suits them, whether due to being perceived as a mere inconvenience, or because it profits them to act in such an unlawful way. (Dominic Cubello)

Al, once this resolution has passed and becomes an ordinance, and it surely will when we have a more responsive council, the appearance and cost of window guards will be as commonplace and as much of a non-issue for landlords and homeowners as stair railings or smoke detectors are today.

"When you couple that with the proposal to increase code inspections to every time a unit turns over ..."

This is not a proposal. It is an existing statute of Albany's Housing Code, See: Part 4 Residential Occupancy Permit, Sec. 231, subsections 128 - 135.

Especially, 231-130(A)(3), excerpted: ..."it shall be unlawful and a violation of this chapter to rent, lease or otherwise allow the occupancy of any residential rental dwelling unit without the inspection and certification as required herein."

My understanding of this is that once a unit has been inspected and it's found to meet all code and zoning requirements, then a Certificate of Occupancy is issued for the unit and it is valid for a period of 30 months. If the tenant moves out and the unit becomes unoccupied within those thirty months, another inspection must take place and a new CO must be obtained prior to re-renting the unit.

Roscoe, you obviously do not know Dominic Calsolaro. If you did, you would know his motives are selfless and driven by his desire to help the people of Albany, his home town. I'm offended by your comment regarding him.

"...as if there's some remote correspondence between a car going 60 with a kid in it, and a window in a residence with a child near it."

Perhaps you've heard of this thing we call gravity? A falling body accelerates at approximately 32' per second, per second. That equates to 22mph after the first second, and proportionaly increases until it reaches terminal velocity. You do the math. Newman has related the effects of falling over 35 feet.

Am I wrong Al, or is it that landlords ride out the C/O until it expires, never reporting to the authorities a vacancy has occured in the interim?

1) You are wrong- New York City has a significantly higher percentage of 3+ story buildings then Albany does and has a significantly higher percentage of children in those mutli storied buildings then Albany does.  

This should be expected as NYC has always had a land shortage and the only thing you can do is build up- so taller buildings. Albany doesn't have a land shortage so we spread out.

And most of the apartment buildings in Albany are made up of studios and one bedroom apartments and cannot rent to families with children over 18 months. Children 18 months or older are supposed to have a separate bedroom.

If you call around you will see that there are very few two + bedroom apartments in the traditional multi story apartment buildings.

So with the possible exception of Central Towers and the stuff owned by the Albany Housing Authority, most of the apartment buildings in Albany do not have many children.  Would you expect apartment owners who cannot have children living in their units to install window guards on all of their windows?

2. You are wrong about reinspections. When the city went to 30 month ROP's they did away with the requirement that landlords have their units re inspected when tenancy changes.

3.  You are wrong about sidekicks. I was here first and besides, sidekicks are supposed to listen to their older and wiser mentors and do their bidding.  Do you really think Roscoe can tell me what to do?

4 storied building are typical in Albany?

My point about the psychological barrier is that if you are panicked and look at a window that has bars across it you will be less likely to see it as an emergency means of egress.  Everyone knows that you can break a window in the event of an emergency. But would you if there are bars?  

Window pins or stops will prevent a window from being opened past a certain height and will prevent the types of falls that are at the heart of the issue.  These stops will not prevent people from breaking the window if someone needs a means of escape.  And they are a lot cheaper then the window guards.  This means that they will be a lower financial burden to landlords who are already struggling in a city with a heavy tax load and outrageous water rates.

Also, if pins and stops prove to be ineffective then the city can always go back and mandate those ugly guards.  But pins and stops should be sufficient and would have prevented the two falls.

As for the make up of the housing stock- age of construction doesn't matter with the exception that it reinforces my argument that Albany has a higher percentage of older fire traps.  It is very easy to compare the height of Albany housing vs NYC.  Simply drive around both or use that neato-jetsville Google street view.  

Again, you will be hard pressed to find children living in non-AHA managed multi-story apartment buildings here in Albany.

I have talked to Codes about the inspections in the past and was told exactly what I told you.