Description
Litter all over front of property and tree strip, garbage can overflowing, never removed from treesstrip. LCI NEEDS TO FINE OWNER $100 PER DAY. WE WOULDN'T NEED A TAX HIKE IF CITY ENFORCED LAWS.
Litter all over front of property and tree strip, garbage can overflowing, never removed from treesstrip. LCI NEEDS TO FINE OWNER $100 PER DAY. WE WOULDN'T NEED A TAX HIKE IF CITY ENFORCED LAWS.
20 Comments
christopher schaefer (Guest)
christopher schaefer (Guest)
Joe (Guest)
Anonymous (Guest)
NEW RICH DEVELOPMENT LLC - yeah really rich alright...
have to agree with Joe, that about half - more in some areas - of New Haven properties look like garbage dumps.
Anonymous (Guest)
Anonymous (Guest)
lists 45 Orchard St. as the mailing address.... which was previously owned by - can you guess?
New Rich development corporation...
Anonymous (Guest)
The web of sleazynes in New Haven is thick...
christopher schaefer (Guest)
The current assets of this "fake" LLC (actually David L. Richards):
NEW RICH DEVELOPMENT LLC 263 DIXWELL AV
(2nd floor is the "LLC's" mailing address)
NEW RICH DEVELOPMENT CO LLC 31 HARDING PL
NEW RICH DEVELOPMENT LLC 12 WEST READ ST
NEW RICH DEVELOPMENT LLC 299 GREENWICH AV
NEW RICH DEVELOPMENT LLC 467 WHALLEY AV
NEW RICH DEVELOPMENT LLC 60 DONNA DR
Quite a bit of potential property to obtain if residents wanted to initiate a class-action lawsuit against this "corporation", e.g. for affecting our quality of life, for knowingly harboring drug dealers, for the resultant lowering of the value of our neighboring properties. And because it's a "fake" LLC, any other assets of David L. Richards are game to claim as restitution for damages and suffering to neighboring residents...
CHRISTOPHER SCHAEFER (Guest)
CONTACT ME:
schaeferchristopher@yahoo.com
Joe (Guest)
So the landlord is supposed to clean up after the tenants now?
I've had scumbag rental tenants/landlords next to me before. Best thing to do is work on getting the tenant out of the hood. I one time had the FBI and city police in my house waiting for the neighbor to come home. Most of the time really trashy people have warrants for something, figure it out.
Anonymous (Guest)
Havenite (Guest)
umm, no. the landlord has no legal reason to pick up garbage and dog crap and dead dogs and prostitutes and crack bags for his tenants. legally he cant do a thing unless they dont pay rent then it takes a LONG time to do anything.
NEVER live next to a rental if you can. problem solved.
Anonymous (Guest)
christopher schaefer (Guest)
Sec. 47a-32. (Formerly Sec. 52-540). Nuisance defined. In any action of summary process based upon nuisance, that term shall be taken to include, but shall not be limited to, any conduct which interferes substantially with the comfort or safety of other tenants or occupants of the same or adjacent buildings or structures. [Note: this last sentence provides the legal basis for adjacent residents to file a lawsuit against landlords who fail to take action against “nuisance tenants”.]
christopher schaefer (Guest)
Unlike ordinary criminal prosecutions, nuisance abatement actions focus on cleaning up properties that are magnets for illegal activity, in addition to punishing wrongdoers.
Public nuisance actions are filed in the Superior Court for the Judicial District where the property is located. The prosecutor will seek court orders or negotiate a stipulated agreement for whatever relief is necessary to stop the criminal activity underlying the nuisance. Many remedies may be possible, ranging from screening prospective tenants for a property to closing the premises.
The Nuisance Abatement prosecutors assemble a team of municipal and state inspectors and arrange for administrative inspections of the nuisance properties. The team will visit each location and each individual agency will conduct an inspection.
Inspectors may cite landlords for violations and arrests may be made. If conditions on a property pose an immediate danger to the health or safety of the tenants or surrounding neighbors, an administrative agency can ordered the building closed.
The Chief State's Attorney's Office, in partnership with neighborhood groups and police departments, is identifying properties where individuals are engaged in chronic illegal activity endangering both law-abiding tenants and the surrounding neighborhood. Examples of such criminal activity include drug sales and prostitution.
Once a location is identified, the Nuisance Abatement Unit notifies the landlord of the problems and asks for a meeting between the landlord or property manager and the Nuisance Abatement prosecutors and police. The two sides will work to develop a written Memorandum of Understanding spelling out the steps the property owner will take to clean up the property.
These steps can include:
• Evicting undesirable tenants.
• Authorizing increased police patrols of the property.
• Making changes or repairs to improve building security.
• Attending a Landlord Training Class.
If the owner or manager takes the actions agreed to in the Memorandum of Understanding and the nuisance ceases, the State in turn agrees not to bring a Nuisance Abatement prosecution based on the past problems with the property.
If the landlord or manager fails to honor their commitments, or if the nuisance persists despite their efforts, the Nuisance Abatement Unit may bring a public nuisance action. Further, if a landlord is actually profiting from illegal activity on the property, the State may even prosecute a forfeiture, asking for confiscation and condemnation of the building.
christopher schaefer (Guest)
(see State versus Tippetts-Abbett-McCarthy-Stratton, 204 Conn. 177; 1987)
While the defendant in a nuisance action frequently is the owner of the property alleged to be the source of nuisance, property ownership is not a prerequisite to nuisance liability. [i.e. just because ownership has been transferred to a “Limited Liability Corporation” aka LLC—which most absentee landlord do—they are not automatically off the hook re. nuisance liability].
A critical factor in this test is whether the defendant exercises control over the property that is the source of nuisance. Similarly, when circumstances show that a defendant exercises de facto control over nuisance-causing property, the fact that title or possession of the property has been transferred to other does not absolve the defendant of liability for the nuisance.
The law of private nuisance springs from the general principle that it is the duty of every person to make a reasonable use of his own property so as to occasion no unnecessary damage or annoyance to his NEIGHBOR. In determining unreasonableness, consideration must be given not only to the interests of the person harmed but also to the interests of the actor and to the interests of THE COMMUNITY AS A WHOLE. Ultimately, the question of reasonableness is whether the interference is beyond that which the plaintiff should bear, under all of the circumstances of the particular case, without being compensated.
In Pestey v. Cushman, 259 Conn. 345 (2002), based on a jury verdict, the trial court entered a judgment for the neighbors of $100,000.The neighbor’s opinion about what caused his property’s value to diminish was properly admitted as testimony by the court.
M (Guest)
You had better find some better evidence then because the pics you provided dont look that bad.
Let us all know how the process goes.
christopher schaefer (Guest)
chill (Guest)
關閉 Karen N (Registered User)