THE VIRGINIAN-PILOT
Copyright (c) 1995, Landmark Communications, Inc.
DATE: Sunday, February 26, 1995 TAG: 9502240194
SECTION: SUFFOLK SUN PAGE: 06 EDITION: FINAL
TYPE: Letter
LENGTH: Medium: 52 lines
My practice is to ignore inaccuracies in media reports of my actions and opinions. Errors in ``Housing inspections stalled temporarily'' (The Sun, Feb. 19) could lead one to think, however, that I had changed my positions on important aspects of the housing inspections program from those stated during our discussions. I am compelled, therefore, to make an exception.
The rate at which compliance with the Housing Code is being achieved through imposition of civil penalties in not directly attributable to the ``. huge increase in violations cases.''
One reason for initiation of civil penalties was the expectation that almost all violations would be corrected prior to cases being heard by the Court. The prosecution of civil suits to judgment should be necessary only in those rare cases where there is a factual dispute or in which the property owner has refused to cooperate with the housing inspector.
An unusually large number of cases may be necessary during the first months of the program as the public becomes acclimated to aggressive housing code enforcement. I seriously doubt, however, that this will require trying almost 1,000 cases in 3 1/2 months.
I have not suggested, and under current circumstances would not suggest, that the ``. . . General District Court be asked to set aside one day a week to deal solely with housing violators.'' The task force, of which I am not a member, recommended ``. . . that the City consider requesting the General District Court to earmark one day a month for housing violations, if needed . raised the obvious problems involved in implementing such a procedure.
Long-term, there might be some value in dedicating certain days for hearing all city matters, but in my opinion that remains to be seen.
I also cannot claim credit for the original suggestion ``. . . that the City begin issuing civil penalties for housing violations rather than issuing criminal summonses.'' I do think, however, it is an idea that merits a reasonable trial period.
The program is not ``stalled temporarily.'' On the contrary, I agree with the city manager that ``the inspections program is back on track.''
Your cooperation and advice have contributed to this, and it is important to me, and I believe to the City of Suffolk, that the record not indicate otherwise.
C. Edward Roettger Jr.
Suffolk City Attorney by CNB