By Amanda Webster and Irene Yukash

Two ordinances passed by Mayor Timothy O’Brien and the common council has New Britain residents and landowners in an uproar and taking a stand in the courts and on the streets.

“We’re here to protest two ordinances, both ordinances being unconstitutional in our opinion,” said Sam Zherka, a landowner.  Zherka traveled from his home in New York to attend the protest on behalf of his property Farmington Hills.

His primary focus was on the newly dubbed “blight” ordinance.  According to Mayor O’Brien’s spokesman Phil Sherwood, the ordinance is to get rid of negligent landlords and keep good landlords on their toes.  It is directed primarily at absentee landlords, owners that live outside of New Britain like Zherka.  The ordinance calls for a $150 annual fee of landlords.

“The people in this town are poor people, they’re hardworking people and by imposing these fines on us, it’s gonna force us to impose those fines on the tenants,” said Zherka.

Megaphone in hand, Zherka led the hundreds of protestors outside of Town Hall on Wednesday, Nov. 14.

“We need a new mayor, vote him out!” chanted the crowd outside of City Hall.  Amongst the waiving flags and homemade signs were several New Britain residents.

“I’m here as much for my landlord as I am for against the ordinance,” said Artie Soja, New Britain resident.

Currently unemployed, Soja fears that the tax could trickle down to his wallet and affect his budget.  But according to Sherwood, the very small amount should not have to fall on tenants.

“It comes out to about $12 per month. That’s if the landlord does the wrong thing and hands it down to the tenants,” said Sherwood.

During a phone interview, Sherwood emphasized that the “hot spot ordinance” should not discourage people faced with an actual emergency from dialing 911.  The ordinance states that excessive 911 calls per year will result in a fine.

“I can’t stress enough what a lie it is that people should be nervous about calling 911. The landlords that are floating that lie are putting people’s lives in danger,” said Sherwood.

Those that made it past the row of police had the chance to express concerns face-to-face with O’Brien and the council. People piled into the overly packed meeting room shoulder-to-shoulder to express their dissatisfaction.

“What this ordinance does is indiscriminately target all landlords, good or bad.  No matter what they do, they’re getting hit with this new fee,” said Nicholas Mercier, president of Citizens Property Owners Association.

“Hopefully we’ll just be able to stop this in the courts with the lawsuit that’s happening,” added Soja.

The lawsuit that Soja referred to is against the city of New Britain.  Zherka, the CT Property Owners Alliance (CTOPA) and several others are suing the city on two counts.  The first brings in the question of whether the $150 fee for landlords is constitutional. The second count states that the charges are irrational.

“You want to build your city through economic development, not fines and fees,” said Robert J. De Cosmo, president of CTPOA.

According to De Cosmo, the ordinances passed by O’Brien stagger a previous program designed to revitalize and stabilize specific New Britain neighborhoods.

In a phone interview De Cosmo stated that because of the new ordinances the program designed to build New Britain property is now too risky to invest in.

“It’s a real setback to the community,” said De Cosmo.

Beyond the outcome of the lawsuit, residents threaten to take action come next election season if the ordinances are upheld.

“Work with the realtors, work with the Connecticut Property Owners Alliance to put in affective policies that will address blight and will improve quality of life in our city,” concluded Mercier.  But despite the protests and lawsuits, O’Brien and council aren’t backing down.

“The worst case scenario is that a member of the council will have to go back in and tweak a detail. This ordinance is here to stay,” said Sherwood.