"Everyone seems to be throwing out the name Mr. Butler," said City Solicitor Christopher Millea. "I know he's a principal. I don't know if there are other members involved. I don't know anything..."
So much gratitude for your work and thanks so much for covering this and providing such a detailed account of the meeting! I also found the meeting on Youtube for those curious to see and/or hear them: https://www.youtube.com/live/6ThJIB0uycI?si=qlpbuNyoI9GyzwGJ&t=3761
I'm not sure I agree that the city solicitor was providing "obfuscation, not answers." The council members kept circling around asking why isn't more being done by the executive branch, and the solicitor provided a lot of detail while saying everything meets the very low bar set by city law ("life safety issues"), and that under current law nothing can be done to push the owner to move faster.
The solicitor's answer seemed to be basically that Cranston's tenant laws are weak. I'm not a legal expert but is this roughly true (in general or compared to other cities)?
While reading I got increasingly frustrated the councilmembers didn't talk at all about legislative action they could take, since AFAICT they have the most power in this situation, to make laws. Towards the end Donegan mentions they have this power, but all along I kept thinking, they are wasting time and should be talking about how to penalize neglectful landlords and tighten up the code for what safe housing looks like. If you're so astonished building permits don't expire quickly enough then change the law and put some teeth in the building code for landlords.
Or am I missing something, and the executive branch really is dragging their feet on enforcement, and Cranston building code is stricter than what they're enforcing? I have no idea so would love to hear from someone with more expertise on this.
So much gratitude for your work and thanks so much for covering this and providing such a detailed account of the meeting! I also found the meeting on Youtube for those curious to see and/or hear them: https://www.youtube.com/live/6ThJIB0uycI?si=qlpbuNyoI9GyzwGJ&t=3761
I'm not sure I agree that the city solicitor was providing "obfuscation, not answers." The council members kept circling around asking why isn't more being done by the executive branch, and the solicitor provided a lot of detail while saying everything meets the very low bar set by city law ("life safety issues"), and that under current law nothing can be done to push the owner to move faster.
The solicitor's answer seemed to be basically that Cranston's tenant laws are weak. I'm not a legal expert but is this roughly true (in general or compared to other cities)?
While reading I got increasingly frustrated the councilmembers didn't talk at all about legislative action they could take, since AFAICT they have the most power in this situation, to make laws. Towards the end Donegan mentions they have this power, but all along I kept thinking, they are wasting time and should be talking about how to penalize neglectful landlords and tighten up the code for what safe housing looks like. If you're so astonished building permits don't expire quickly enough then change the law and put some teeth in the building code for landlords.
Or am I missing something, and the executive branch really is dragging their feet on enforcement, and Cranston building code is stricter than what they're enforcing? I have no idea so would love to hear from someone with more expertise on this.
I love this take. I also would have loved to see someone step up and do something concrete about this
OMG 24/6‼️👁️
Thank you for covering this!