Sign In | Create an Account | Welcome, . My Account | Logout | Subscribe | Submit News | Contact Us | All Access E-Edition | Home RSS

Elkins Council passes rental registration law

October 18, 2013

By Michael Green Fonte Staff Writer Elkins City Council made local history Thursday by unanimously passing a rental registration ordinance on its second and final reading....

« Back to Article

sort: oldest | newest




Oct-18-13 6:33 AM

What a surprise. Democrats are more than willing to pass hundreds of new 'ordinances' in cities that bring in more money for them. This is just the beginning. It won't end here. Control and money is their aim. Randolph county is only going to make rental property more obsolete and run owners that rent to others out of their city. Vote the bums out. Don't put up with it. Or keep these taxing bums in office and get ready for more of the same.

1 Agrees | 2 Disagrees | Report Abuse »


Oct-18-13 10:36 AM

What the f**k does this have to do with political parties? You, sir, have a problem.

2 Agrees | 1 Disagrees | Report Abuse »


Oct-18-13 7:27 PM

Judy Guy wanted to do this first I believe, who I think is a registered republican.

But ignoring that simple issue, I agree the city should burden the expense of the inspection.

1 Agrees | 1 Disagrees | Report Abuse »


Oct-19-13 2:29 PM

What a surprise...neither TruthSeeker or Puremagix have a clue what this issue is about. And neither knows the political affiliation of the mayor or the members of City Council. The owners of rental properties should be responsible for the cost of inspections and consider it a cost of doing business in Elkins. All businesses in Elkins are charged a B&O tax and rental properties are a business. There is no reason for the taxpayers to assume the financial responsibility of paying for inspections of business properties.

1 Agrees | 0 Disagrees | Report Abuse »


Oct-19-13 5:50 PM

Everyone understands where the city's money comes from, right? When someone argues that "the city" should bear a cost, they are really arguing for "the city's taxpayers" to bear that cost. That's definitely something worth discussing, but I just wanted to make sure everyone is clear on that point.

1 Agrees | 0 Disagrees | Report Abuse »

Showing 5 of 5 comments

Post a Comment

You must first login before you can comment.

*Your email address:
Remember my email address.


I am looking for:
News, Blogs & Events Web