If the City of Lakewood implements their proposed Rental Housing Safety Inspection Program, they will be capitalizing on tactics previously used successfully by Adolf Hitler. Adolf always liked to target particular groups of people who could not effectively speak up or defend themselves such as those with mental disabilities, Jews and Gypsies.
Others, who were not members of a currently targeted group thought they would be safe. So what did most of the safe-group individuals do? Nothing,
Our modern day City of Lakewood scenario has our city council considering a program that will target landlords, property managers and renters, three unorganized and for the most part small or non-groups who have a difficult time speaking up or defending themselves.
The city tells us that they will not and cannot target home owners. So we home owners can feel safe. Because we are home owners it easy for us to think, this is not our problem. Of course anything can change. Did you ever think you would see the day when we would allow men in women’s restrooms and showers? Anything can change including implementing safety inspections in private owner occupied homes.
First it is the other guy government goes after. After we let that happen then government comes looking for us.
Folks who are not landlords, property managers or tenants feel safe right now, because they are not members of the three groups targeted by the city. So what are most of the non-targeted individuals doing about this today? Nothing, just like in Hitler’s day.
The city tells us that forcing their way into tenant homes against the tenant’s will is not a 4th Amendment violation. That remains to be seen. There are lawsuits and legal appeals cropping up throughout our country over this very issue.
Adolf Hitler authorized his storm troopers to force their way into private homes. If adopted, our city will authorize their City of Lakewood Rental Housing Safety Inspectors to force or coerce their way into private rental homes. In some jurisdictions the consequences for not allowing the inspector to violate your right to privacy may include red-tagging your home as uninhabitable or cutting off utilities. Like Hitler said, “We have our ways!”
While I recognize my Adolf Hitter analogy may tighten some jaws, is there not a good deal of similarity between Hitler’s tactics and the plan proposed by our city? If the city fails to make the right decision on this issue, a good number of innocent landlords, property managers and tenants will lose freedom, privacy and money.
For those who might consider my above description to be nothing but hyperbole, let me lay out just the facts.
- Tenants already have resources in place and options that allow them to solve their own problems without impacting innocent parties.
- Responsible landlords and property management companies do not need and do not want to be negatively impacted by the proposed Rental Housing Safety Inspection Program. They have done nothing to deserve such roughshod business busting treatment from the city.
- Most tenants do not want city officials forcing their way into their rental homes. If the tenant wants an inspection, they can call the city and invite inspectors into their home. How would you feel if an inspection team from the city forced their way into your home today?
- Regardless of ultimate court decisions, what the city is proposing has the same effect as a warrantless search and seizure; the same as a violation of the tenant’s 4th Amendment Rights. The city may accomplish this warrantless search by highjacking the Landlord Tenant Law 48 hour right to inspect provision, historically reserved for use by the property owner or manager.
If the city were to choose to educate tenants regarding their tenant rights and existing resources, then tenants would know how to protect their own best interests including utilization of the Washington State Landlord Tenant Law.
Hitler started by targeting those with mental illness. He eventually applied his tactics to include more and more groups such as the Jews and Gypsies.
Why would the city not want to change the law and expand this safety program? They are talking about citizen safety; right? Home owners are citizens and they need to be safe. If they can start with rentals and then later expand to home owners, the city can grow their $175,000 annual cash flow to $350,000 a year without any increase in fees. Of course once established, the fees will increase.
When the city decides they are going to implement a Housing Safety Inspection Program that will target owner occupied homes, that will be when homeowners may wish they had spoken up to defend landlords, property managers and tenants.
Today it is them. Tomorrow it is us.
Follow this line of reasoning:
At the 22:38 minute mark (link provided below) of Lakewood Mayor Don Anderson’s preliminary comments to the July 5, 2016 Public Hearing on the Rental Inspection Program (RIP), he says this:
“What we’re not doing is we’re not considering anything that has to do with rent control . . . . Those have not been and there is no intention to consider anything like that. In fact we have a couple of lawyers up here who both have a fairly clear understanding that rent control is unconstitutional under the Washington State Constitution. We wouldn’t attempt that even if we wanted to.”
Perhaps not, but Seattle would.
Seattle’s lead on this issue, Lakewood RIP architects admit, is something Lakewood has followed, along with other cities, in crafting its own RIP.
Seattle not only instituted a robust rental inspection program but, with that victory, has followed with unanimous legislation “which forbids landlords from raising rents until they bring their properties up to standards.”
Seattle Councilmember Kshama Sawant promised it was just the beginning. Next up: “a bill to cap move-in costs.”
And after that? Rent control.
In this past June 6 issue of “Crosscut,” David Kroman quotes Seattle Councilmember Lisa Herbold as more than willing to fight landlords in court where, Herbold said “our response should be to take this even further,” advocating for doubling down on tenant protections and repealing the Washington State ban on rent control.”
Lakewood’s Mayor Don Anderson claimed Lakewood wouldn’t do that?
Not yet.
https://vimeo.com/channels/205285/173572263
This is the link to the audio/video record of the July 5, 2016 Public Hearing on Lakewood’s proposed Rental Inspection Program.
Mr. Boyle:
There are absolutely no similarities between what the City of Lakewood is attempting to do with regard to the Rental Housing Safety Inspection Program and the party and tactics of Adolph Hitler.
To even imply or suggest that anyone serving on the City Council or working for the City of Lakewood acts or thinks in a manner suggestive of the Nazi Party – as your inaccurate and juvenile article makes very clear – is indecent and offensive.
To think that you once served as an officer of the law truly staggers the imagination.
We may and do disagree on a number of issues, Mr. Boyle, but for you to suggest that individuals who disagree with you are acting in a manner reminiscent of the Nazi Party and/or Adolph Hitler only speaks clearly to the content of your character.
Though protected by the First Amendment of the Constitution, in this instance your exercise of your right to free speech is a disgrace.
John Simpson
Lakewood City Council
Position 5
On the contrary Mr Simpson, your council intending to trample on the citizens of Lakewood is a disgrace.
Like Hitler…you are going to do what you want to do, regardless of common sense. It is obvious that all of you have already made up your minds, and now you are just playing games with the people of Lakewood. That City Hall meeting was just a farce, you never intended to actually consider the comments of those in attendance.
There are already enough provisions and rules on the books to accomplish the same means without punishing homeowners.
You do realize that any expense or extra fee put upon the homeowners to abide by your new ‘rental program’ will just be passed on to the tenants anyway, don’t you?
This council is using deceitful measures to accomplish their goal, is it possible that there is an underlying ulterior motive?
Warning: trust is a very difficult thing to build, and once broken, nearly impossible to regain.
I and several of my friends and neighbors are sick and tired of government on any level….acting like they are speaking for us, but refusing to truly listen to us.
That is what is offensive Mr. Simpson.
I agree with Mr. Simpson. The Hitler comments do not help.
I’ve been following this story for a while now and it’s interesting that with all of many articles and comments written in this forum, it took a Hitler reference to get a council member to speak up. At least we now know they are reading the public comments and are well aware of how much the community opposes their plan.
Perhaps the Hitler reference is offensive to some, but if it helps get more people to pay attention to what the city council is planning on doing to them, it’s probably a small price to pay. I do not denounce anyone’s right to voice their opinion on this or any other matter, even if their words make me uncomfortable or if they might offend me.
I am ashamed to have Mr. Boyle in our community. As a first generation German who’s family members lived during the time of National Socialism and embraced it only to later regret it; you sound like an ignorant fool. To compare an open democratic City government process to what happened in Europe is to not know history and have no perspective. Please focus your time elsewhere, and if needed you can come by and read my first hand copies of signed books by any number of National Socialist authors of the time, that, have inherited and see that ignorance brought about the rise of Adolf Hitler.
It’s good to have dissenting opinions, glad you’re part of the conversation.
If you think this is truly an open government process, then it’s possible you have missed some important parts of this story.
It’s easy to throw stones with you stay anonymous. It also diminishes credibility. I’m enjoying the rare agreement of JB and DA on an issue, so please don’t discourage that 🙂
-SG
Let’s drop all the ridiculous name calling and actually deal with this situation. The city is wanting to enact a program that in essence duplicates existing landlord-tenant law. Is not much of this also covered under code enforcement, an already existing department of our local government? If you actually want to do something focus your opposition on the what it is going to cost tax-payers. Stick with the facts of redundant government programs and Lakewood’s previous commitment to education over government intrusion. Our tax dollars are much better spent on hiring one or two people to help both tenants and landlords navigate our existing laws and enforce current residential codes than creating an entire bureaucracy that will cost us a fortune in the long run.
Leaving the politics of Mr Boyle aside, I believe that the slums of Lakewood need to be addressed. Yes, slums! I am no real estate expert but when I looked to rent in Lakewood, I found that rundown, neglected apartments in Tillicum cost as much as units in Oakbrook. As a soldier, I have seen this in other military towns when landlords couldn’t or wouldn’t maintain the units rented to soldiers and their families.
We have a very large low-income population in Lakewood who may not be in the best situation to force landlords to maintain healthy dwellings. Rentals are a business! The business of offering a product on the market demands that quality standards be established.
My father fought Hitler and I am a student of history. Hitler used bombast, name-calling and hatred to force his will on the majority.
I am convinced that best intentions can lead to unfortunate results. So I would rather have a discussion on the merits and limits of the program before we throw it out.
Mr. Smith, I agree we have a Lakewood slum problem and needs to be fixed. I also agree with your thought regarding having intelligent conversation to develop a fair, ethical and effective plan to solve the problem.
To that end, I am working hard to bring attention to the issues at hand and to stimulate citizen conversation and participation.
Thank you for your constructive comment.
Joseph Boyle
You are correct Larry “that the best of intentions can lead to unfortunate results.” Lakewood’s proposed Rental Inspection Program (RIP) is one of those. With this article there have now been 14 published (13 here, one in the Tacoma News Tribune) concerning Lakewood’s RIP. There are strong feelings and positions that have been expressed, the vast majority opposed to the RIP as evidenced by the audio/video link provided in this thread, and comments to the aforementioned articles. With the exception of the audio/video record of testimony the night of July 5 at the City Council Public Hearing, Lakewood has for the most part published on its website dedicated to this issue the history of this program’s development.
All to say that “a discussion on the merits and limits of the program” has been had and is continuing.
Also all to say that there are more than adequate recourses for the City Council – and resources for the public – that are readily available to most simply, economically, and common-sensically (if you will) deal with substandard properties.
Lakewood’s RIP architects are aware of those and yet have opted not to avail themselves of the low-cost and effective measures but instead would install a bureaucratic, layered, heavy-handed and leveraged imposition on all rental properties everywhere located within the city.
If the Lakewood City Council were to do the right thing, the representative thing, then the night of July 18 when councilmembers are scheduled to vote on this, they would send RIP back to the drawing board.
What’s a disgrace, Mr. Simpson, is that you and the other Lakewood City Council members are even considering implementing such a program…shame on YOU! … and no, I do not live in Lakewood. I just hate seeing stupid programs forced on tax payers by money grubbing politicians.
When facts, logic and reason fail, resort to name calling. The Council is working hard to try to do what is right. Mr. Boyle now compares us to Nazis. Mr. (David-no relation) Anderson implies that I am a liar. Those are indicators that we must be doing something right, so I’ll take them both as compliments.
Care to defend that statement Mayor?
Mr. Anderson (No relation to David Anderson),
I never compared City Council to Nazi’s, nor have I ever called City Council Nazi’s. I do not even think that which you speak. Often when people see those two words, Adolf Hitler, they hear what they want to hear. Please set your emotional reaction to the side and look at the facts.
What I said was Hitler would have approved the tactics being used by City Council related to government forcing their way into people’s homes.
I compared the tactics, that will be used if the Rental Registration & Safety Inspection Program is implemented to those used by Adolf Hitler. They are very similar and both are wrong. No compliment here.
Joseph Boyle