 |
| DanTD / Wikipedia |
According to reports, the Town of Riverhead has settled two State Supreme Court actions against these investors, who have been embroiled in multiple town code violations, including renting properties without proper permits. While the town claims victory in resolving, some residents are skeptical about the effectiveness of the settlement in deterring future violations.
The settlement agreement requires the defendants to pay a total of $60,000 in civil penalties, with each defendant paying $20,000. Additionally, they must remove existing tenants, address existing violations, and commit to obtaining the necessary rental permits before renting any of the properties again. However, many argue that these penalties might not be enough to discourage repeat offenses, especially when considering the potential financial gains from operating illegal rentals.
The defendants' history of multiple violations raises concerns about the town's enforcement efforts. Despite ongoing violations over several years, the defendants seemed to have faced minimal consequences until now. Critics point out that this leniency may have emboldened them to continue operating illegal rentals, thus necessitating more decisive action to ensure compliance.
The settlement only addresses three specific actions against the investors, leaving some wondering about the extent of violations across their entire portfolio of properties. This limited scope raises questions about whether the town has fully addressed the scale of the issue and whether other properties owned by these investors are also non-compliant.
The civil penalties imposed seem disproportionate to the potential gains made by the defendants from operating illegal rentals. Critics argue that more substantial fines should have been levied to serve as a genuine deterrent. With the potential civil penalties for each violation reaching up to $100,000, the $20,000 penalties might not be perceived as a significant deterrent for future offenders.
Critics also question the efficacy of the required code compliance as part of the settlement. Will the defendants rectify the violations, or will they simply wait for the public scrutiny to die down before returning to their previous practices? The lack of a stringent monitoring mechanism leaves room for skepticism about the effectiveness of this aspect of the settlement.
In addition, the town's delay in settling for a third case against the same investors raises concerns about the efficiency and effectiveness of the enforcement process. If violators sense a lack of urgency or significant consequences, they may continue operating illegally until they face direct action from authorities.
While Deputy Town Attorney Danielle Hurley, who prosecuted the cases, expressed satisfaction with the outcome, critics argue that more needs to be done to address the root causes of illegal rentals in the area. They call for a comprehensive approach that includes stricter penalties, more proactive enforcement, and transparent monitoring to ensure long-term compliance with rental regulations.
As Riverhead continues to grapple with the issue of illegal rentals, residents and observers are keenly watching the town's efforts to protect its communities and uphold the rule of law. Only time will tell if the recent settlement will bring about meaningful change or if more robust measures are necessary to tackle this persistent problem.