Harp Fined For Trash, Missed Inspections

One man’s trash is another man’s tenant’s loose tires, copper pipes, and splintering wooden cart of debris and furniture.

Local landlord W. Matthew Harp floated that idea at a series of back-to-back civil citation hearings involving some of his properties, which saddled him with nearly $20,000 in fines.

Harp and his lawyer convened with representatives of the Livable City Initiative (LCI), the city’s anti-blight and housing code enforcement agency, inside a second-floor City Hall meeting room on Tuesday morning to contest four civil citations over conditions at several of his properties. Volunteer hearing officer Julie Bernblum issued fines for three out of the four citations.

Over the course of the hearings, Harp called into question the very definitions underpinning the city’s anti-blight code. 

Is that heap of ​“unmaintained landscaping” really just a natural buffer of native plants? 

Is that pile of ​“trash” actually a tenant’s intentionally placed belongings? 

And are the standards for clean and dignified housing equally applied throughout the city?

Citation #1: Unruly Overgrowth Or Intentional Greenery?

The first case to be reviewed pertained to the shrubbery on the border between the Presidential Gardens housing complex, which Harp’s company owns, and the Farmington Canal Trail. 

City attorney Sinclair Williams and LCI Neighborhood Specialist Taylor Munroe presented a series of photographs of the brushwood on Harp’s side of the property line, captured when the citation was first issued in August and again in December.

Munroe said he found an Easy Bake oven and a couple of trash bags strewn amongst the shrubbery over the summer. Harp has cleaned up that trash, Munroe said, but ​“people dump in here often.” He argued that the unruly appearance of the plants attracts more litter.

Harp replied that the shrubbery is actually a ​“demarcation,” an intentional border between the housing complex and the trail. He told the city that he’s willing to prune the plants to ​“an aesthetic that you all like,” but argued that the plants are ​“natural” and that ​“we should be allowed to have a certain area” of plants that ​“proliferate and grow.” 

“There’s a dumpster there,” he added. ​“I presume that people would rather see the plants growing.”

“The issue isn’t that he has a buffer,” said Munroe. ​“It’s that it’s not being maintained at all. It’s attracting people to dump… It’s just sort of unsightly. If he wanted to plant trees along that line, that would be fine.”

“You said the trash gets picked up. So it is being maintained,” argued Harp’s lawyer, Kirt Westfall. 

“The landscaping isn’t being maintained,” Williams responded.

“So you’re gonna tell us there’s no dumping on other parts of the trail?” Harp interjected. 

He had come to the hearing prepared with photos of litter and shrubbery along other segments of the canal trail.

No, responded Munroe and Williams emphatically.

LCI wants neighborhoods to ​“reflect the dignity and the worth of every resident,” added LCI Director Liam Brennan, who had been listening in. Every property in violation of the code should receive a citation, he said, but ​“we can only go one property at a time.”

“If there’s a violation anywhere else, please tell us where they are,” said Williams. ​“What’s happening somewhere else is not an excuse.”

Bernblum decided to delay any decisions on this case until May, when the plants would be in full bloom and more clearly visible. ​“I do think you’re trying to comply,” she told Harp. ​“It is very overgrown. I would like to see this cleaned up.”

Citation #2: Trash Or Treasure?

Another Harp-owned property at the center of a hearing on Tuesday was the two-family house at 75 Brewster St.

“The violations have been resolved,” Williams explained. ​“The issue was how long it took.”

LCI inspected the property in April after Harp registered it with the city’s mandatory landlord licensing program. Inspectors found a backyard full of loose tires, copper pipes, rusty gas canisters, motorcycles, chopped-up logs, and empty beer packaging — not to mention a partially intact wooden cart containing a heap of building debris and furniture.

Another LCI visit to the backyard in September revealed a similar scene. Harp had the yard cleaned up shortly afterwards.

“I’m trying to determine whether it was the same trash or debris,” said Bernblum as she compared photographs of the yard from April and September. She concluded that the items, including the cart, appeared to be ​“substantially the same.”

As Munroe flipped through a slideshow of images, another lawyer representing Harp, Theresa Behrens, interjected with possible explanations for why the ​“trash” in the yard might not actually be trash.

“It looks like there’s recycling going on with copper pipes,” she observed.

“We have tenants inside of there whose belongings some of these things are,” said Harp. ​“We don’t have control over everything. If a tenant says, ​‘We need more time’…”

Bernblum asked Harp if he’d ever notified his tenants that the items would be removed if left out beyond a certain date. Harp replied that he had threatened to evict the tenants.

(After the hearings, LCI Director Brennan was asked about the potential that strict housing code enforcement will lead to more consequences for tenants, such as eviction. ​“It’s a legitimate concern,” he said, but ​“I’ve seen no evidence of that actually playing out.” Brennan is generally wary that landlords may expect his department to cave whenever eviction is mentioned, he said, noting that ​“we don’t want to let the threat of that” affect the city’s enforcement.)

In the end, Bernblum decided that ​“it’s pretty clear that there was a lot of bulk trash” — not necessarily personal belongings — in the backyard. Since the yard was eventually cleared, she fined Harp half of the maximum fine — $50 per day from LCI’s initial April citation until the yard’s cleanup, amounting to a cost of $8,050.

“I’m a landlord, too. I understand your frustration,” Bernblum said. ​“But I’m not gonna let a bunch of bulk trash remain on my property.” 

Citations #3 And #4: Lost Mail Or Neglected Notices?

Harp received two other fines on Tuesday, both due to repeated failures to show up for inspections at 220 – 222 Dixwell and 672 Howard, both of which he had recently registered as required with the landlord licensing program.

Harp maintained that he had not received the letters providing notice of an inspection, a makeup inspection, and a citation for each of the two properties. 

A back-and-forth dialogue confirmed that the city had the correct address of Harp’s office, as provided by Harp himself, though the exact floor of Harp’s office hadn’t been provided. 

“I don’t hide from city inspections,” stressed Harp. ​“Sometimes things fall through the cracks.”

“I am going to impose fines,” said Bernblum. ​“It’s just too many notices you’re saying weren’t received” — especially since Harp would have been expecting the inspection notices after registering the two properties.

Bernblum issued Harp a $50 per day fine for the missed inspections at 220 – 222 Dixwell, amounting to a $9,650 fine spanning from the citation date until Harp’s first time contacting the city in the fall.

Harp soon conceded that he would be willing to pay a fine for the other property as well. He proposed a $25 per day fine, totaling $1,825.

“Since you’re willing to compromise,” Bernblum said, a $25 per day fine would be acceptable.

In total, Harp was fined $19,525.