On August 1, 2016, at 7:00p I sat in a front row seat to observe Lakewood City Council process their decision related to the Rental Registration & Safety Inspection Program (RRSIP).
During the public comment session, I easily admitted that my published articles included laser like highly critical analogies. I went on to say that not one of my articles included any criticism directed towards members of City Council or city staff. In fact, I am positive about our city council and city staff. Negative thoughts regarding any of these individuals serving our city have not entered my mind, nor have I had any private conversations that included negative comments.
I am thankful we have people willing to do what, at times, must be a thankless job. So my discussion was only about ideas and issues, not about people.
The vote is in. The City of Lakewood is going to implement the program including some amendments to the original proposal as follows:
- Section 4: Rental properties occupied by the owner, a parent or child are to be exempt.
- The RRSIP Director is to report the program results to City Council one time per year.
- Section 4G: New buildings will be exempt for ten years from the date of issuance of the Certificate of Occupancy.
- Section 5a: Delete director’s ability to waiver a property from inspection.
- Section 3: Mobile homes are exempt.
It appeared that each member of the council did a lot of soul searching to come to what they felt was the right decision.
Each council member spoke to provide their rational for their decision. Some of the comments were as follows:
The public does not understand the law about not being able to target just the problem properties. I, do understand, but do not believe that is a justification to punish people who are not a part of the problem.
Currently, the city can only be reactive based on ordinances currently in place. The city wishes to be proactive.
The program might well eliminate problem properties that will impact on our city reputation, which will help everyone in the city.
There is a maximum of only one inspection every five years, which should not be much of a burden.
There are scary houses in Lakewood. We have to do something.
There are children suffering out there in substandard housing. We have to do something.
Realty Trac reported that Lakewood is the number one “down and out” neighborhood. We have to do something different if our city is to lose that dubious distinction.
We all need to work together for the benefit of the city.
Council Person, Marie Barth, who voted NO, mentioned the importance of not eroding private property rights. She also referenced her desire to see the city improve the ordinances and programs that are already on the books so that they could be used instead of starting a new program.
While each council member appeared to make a thoughtful decision regarding what they felt was the right way to vote, I was highly impressed with Council Person Marie Barth’s courage and independence and her willingness to cast a Nay vote. She voiced her vote with maximum courtesy and respect for the other members of the council and the city staff.
The Lakewood City Council voted 6 Yea and 1 Nay was as follows:
Council Person Mary Moss – Yea
Council Person Mike Branstetter – Yea
Council Person John Simpson – Yea
Mayor Don Anderson – Yea
Deputy Mayor Jason Whalen – Yea
Council Person Marie Barth – Nay
Council Person Paul Bocchi – Yea
Readers, as time passes feel free to contact me with any good or bad experience you have as a rental property owner, rental manager or renter. I would like to learn of your experience and possibly share that experience with our community.
Setting my opinion to the side, I will happily report the good, and bad as to how the RRSIP impacts on your life and business.
I have to stop writing now because I need to shuffle down to city hall to pick up an application for that new $93,000 director’s job. Is there anyone willing to offer a letter of reference to the city for me?
Thank YOU Mr. Boyle for all you respectful, thoughtful and well written articles. I wished I could have been there. And if my opinions were valued by the council I would write that letter for you in a heartbeat but alas, it is not that way
Well, maybe all of us rental property owners should shuffle down to see about getting that $93,000 -a-year-job since we all will be paying for it. That is more than many city, county or state workers get. How could he/she possibly do enough work to earn such a wage? ……..I see he/she will only make a MAXIMUM of one visit every 5 years in each place…………now just how much work is that anyway, for being paid $93,000 a year??? …….I am extremely disappointed you people decided to vote that program in, especially after about 99% of the comments were critical while it was still a ‘proposal’. I am sure, like Marie Barth said, you have PLENTY ordinances on the books already that would have saved that $93,000 & all the other expense, to wisely use that money so EVERYYONE that pays taxes could have benefited.
Well said!
Joe,
Thank you for writing on this challenging topic and policy decision. As you indicated, it was a policy decision not taken lightly by this Council. Much input was received and considered–resulting in many good modifications and amendments to the final ordinance and program–which we believe will positively impact the community as a whole over time. The program will require an annual report to the Council and the community so that modifications and adjustments can be made as appropriate. As for your new job–I think you may have to apply to a private contractor yet to be determined because it is likely not going to be a new FTE for the City. While no final decision has been made on this point (budget discussion in the Fall), I believe the City will contract out any inspection services to keep the program costs as low as possible and yet provide the service the community will expect. Keep up the good work!
Jason,
As recent as this past July 18, according to the City Council Agenda packet of that date, on p.012 there is this statement about council discussion that occurred on July 11, 2016 during its study session (p.4).
“Discussion ensued on the Council’s desire to make a decision on the rental housing program.” There was interest, expressed by you – Jason Whalen – to have “more time to consider the Rental safety program.” You “suggested having another Council Study Session and deferring action. . . .”
Among the reasons: “obtaining information on six cities that have rental housing inspection programs (as to) are their programs a success?”
Eighteen months spent by council deliberating this matter and you’re just now asking this question?
Do you mean to say the Council has no evidence that these things actually work?
If so, please provide.
The rental inspection program (RIP) just passed by Council does absolutely nothing for people currently living in substandard conditions today and indeed may not do anything for another 6 years for them until RIP is actually instituted and the slumlord wins the RIP lottery to be inspected. A simple call-in number like 311 (which currently exists for abandoned and vacant properties with issues), Facebook page or smart phone app could begin tomorrow to deal with substandard rental properties and wouldn’t cost the city……or responsible landlords……a dime using the current code enforcement staff. Instead Council has passed a program that will cost $875,000 over the next 5 years and over $2,000,000 in inspection fees to landlords….passed on to tenants and not even address the problems of substandard rentals today. If indeed the Council is really interested in improving rental housing and not just expanding government, let them propose these short term measures which start working today and perhaps they’ll find that there isn’t the need for a RIP after all.
I totally agree with those against the housing inspection program. There are other ways to keep renters in safe housing. RIP is just another example of bigger government.
Ms. Eliason,
Thank you for your comment. 99% of us tried to inform city hall, but we were not able to help city council see the folly of the RRSIP plan.
If I have the right Ms. Eliason, how is your son M?
Joseph Boyle