1435 CHESTNUT ST 2016-01-01 MF Import

. . , i'✓ ?J i��i�aJ/-7�..c-J/ ��- 11. In m;r tim� here in Evorett I have roconditionod some 22 hom�;❑ worth at tho presont over y110,000. Thc��e pinc�s ront for in ea:cess of ^12,000 por yo4r �nd hring in more taxos to the State than vacant lots. 12. This proposod Ordinance could dostroy this pro�ram and croate a sti1.]. more shortago of low cost housing. People on relic�f car,not find a nlace to livo witlzout Rreat difficulty. 13. The power to dony a normit to ropair is also a power to destro,y, as wo cire livin� in n world of coni:inual docc�,y, etc, so that withoui: ropair, all proporty musb b�3 vacatod and will bo lost. 14. Now the Ordinance calls for a panalty or :P3oo.00 a dey and 90 da,ys i.n fail or ;73��0 evory 10 da,�s and 7y ouars G montha in jail to rosist tho cit,y order. Thi.� is cruol and unusual _ punishme�nt not held eonstitutional i.n this country and means tho propert}� owner is compellod to accept what he may consider an in,justico, 15. The prosent Ordinanco calls for ov3ry 10 9ays to bo a now vio- lation o_^ the ordor of tho city with :r300 fino and 90 days in fail pon�lty. This moans the owner is arrestod evor,y 10 days and must appoal to tho city court and put up bail oach 10 days to keop out of fail as it he hud committod some crime. Tnis is ambiguous and conPusing, Only one offonse has boen co�mnitted and if tiiis is under appeal, no moro bail or arrests should be sllvdod and the owner ma,y not be disturbed while tho caso i3 boing docided. 16, To malce each day r,onstituto anothor aff'onse calls also for another arro�t oach day and moro bail monoy each �lny. The owner ma�r bo in the ri�ht if it is 3o riotorminc�d by tho hi�*hor courts so thoao daily errests and daily bail doos not make sense und is thoreforc� umbi.�uous. 17. If the o£1'ense is over,y day n now oti'r�nso, then the ownor would have a r1�ht to appeul oach day for anothor meotin� of the appeal board , etc , Tho provinion of new dril ly ofienses therei'ore ahould bo dr�ppod and the offenae �ust ono. 18. Tho Ordj.nc�ncc� doclarc�s the city employoes aro not to be held liable or cany ordors they may �civo, rrhether �;ood or bad, p rocent docj.sio�i of thA Supromo Court of this state doclar�s such employeos are responsibla and may bo sued. So tho Ordinanco violates stato law on this noint. 1�. The ci.t,y i.s tho a�grc�ssor agninst tho uroport,y ownor and instir;ates the action, yQt is unwilli.nL to pay for its own costs and compells the dofondant oirnor to pny �r25.00 per day or 250 ovor,y 10 c'a,ys to help tha cit;� d�stroy his own proporty. This provision is unJu�t where tho city is tho ag�rc�asor in my opinion end I think most p�ople. Thia �lioixld be left out of Ordinance,