On August 1, 2016, Lakewood City Council sent a clear message to all renters living in Lakewood by voting for the Rental Housing Safety Program. known as the R.I.P. Essentially the message from Lakewood City Council was, Lakewood renters do not possess enough brain power, energy or courage to manage their own rental housing SAFETY without government interference.
Although most, if not all, city council members do not agree with my viewpoint, I have provided a link above which will take you to the city website where council members share why they support the rental inspection plan.
While we have not heard much lately, it looks like it will not be very long before property owners and renters will have to start living with this new big brother program.
The Fourth Amendment to the U.S. Constitution guarantees that citizens are to be free of unreasonable search and seizure of their persons and papers.
The city councils’ vote indicates a willingness to violate Fourth Amendment Rights or at least the spirit of the Fourth Amendment Rights in the guise as the council says, “moving in the right direction in the name of SAFETY”.
For the sake of argument, let’s say I am wrong and city council is right. Then why not make the SAFETY program more comprehensive?
I offer the following suggestions to our Lakewood City Council in consideration for making their SAFETY plan more comprehensive which means more renter SAFETY.
- UNIFORMED POLICE OFFICER: Include a uniformed police officer on the rental housing inspection team for SAFETY. The officer can check everyone at the house for criminal warrants. Renters and landlords with a warrant get booked into jail. The officer can also try to protect the other unarmed team members should a rental occupant resort to violence in an effort to fight for what they perceive to be their constitutional rights. It is obvious that the city council plan promotes unnecessary verbal and physical confrontation making a uniformed police officer a must.
- DRUG DOG: Because our city council is pushing R.I.P. in the name of SAFETY then using a drug dog to locate and confiscate renter’s illegal drugs makes sense. If city council allows drugs to remain in the rental house, the renter could expire from a drug overdose. In the name of SAFETY, we should confiscate illegal drugs and book drug abusing renters into jail.
- ILLEGAL ALIEN CHECK: Anyone in this country illegally has committed a crime. That is what the term “illegal alien” means. If they return after being deported, then they are a felon. That being said, the uniformed officer (Reference #1 above) should check each renter’s citizenship status. Illegal aliens should be turned over to the immigration authorities in the name of safety. Their very illegal presence in our country confirms they are criminals. After all, we have enough of our own home-grown criminals. We do not need to import criminals from other countries. The R.I.P. program should deport any out of country criminals found in our Lakewood rental properties in the name of public SAFETY.
- STOLEN PROPERTY CHECK: The R.I.P. is a golden opportunity for victims of burglaries, car prowls, and thefts to get their property back including stolen vehicles. The R.I.P. is all about SAFETY, so why not take this opportunity to make our personal property SAFE by running serial numbers for stolen property checks?
- FIREARMS – CONCEALED CARRY & OPEN CARRY: An on-site uniformed police officer can confiscate any weapons the renter may be wearing or have in his or her possession. Oh, wait. What about Second Amendment Rights? I guess it stands to reason that if city council is willing to violate the Fourth Amendment, it should be easy to violate the Second Amendment. A renter might tell the uninvited city inspection team that if they are not comfortable with the renter wearing a firearm, then they should leave. In most cases, the renter will have a right to wear a firearm.
With these enhancements to the Rental Inspection Safety Program, I am starting to understand what our city council’s drive for SAFETY can mean.
If Lakewood City Council chooses to ignore the Fourth Amendment by simply hiding behind the word SAFETY, our city can accomplish a lot by simply expanding their safety program.
One last observation. Our Lakewood City Council’s R.I.P. is a genius move. Think about it. Without the council approved R.I.P. program made possible by hijacking the inspection provision of the Washington State Landlord Tenant Act there could be no R.I.P. The city now plans to bully their way over renter thresholds. The manipulation of the Landlord Tenant law is a bold and creative move.
What would happen if police bullied or forced their way through a renter’s front door with no probable cause, no reasonable suspicion, no exigent circumstances and no warrant? This would be thought of as an abuse of police power and a violation of the renter’s Constitutional Rights.
People would be outraged if our uniformed police acted in a Gestapo-like fashion. The ACLU would be all over this kind of police action. The Department of Justice would launch a major investigation. Civil lawsuits would be filed with the City of Lakewood paying out millions of dollars on civil rights claims. There would be protestors marching on city hall.
My compliments to our city council. They have made it possible to accomplish what would ordinarily seem impossible in America and in doing so, will be bringing SAFETY to our renters.
If in the end if the SAFETY enhancements I have suggested are not included in the R.I.P., then SAFETY must not be the real motivation for the R.I.P.. I would ask, “What then is city council’s true motivation?”
For any of you thinking this article contains ridiculous suggestions, I would be quick to admit that I agree with you. But, my suggested SAFETY enhancements are no more ridiculous than Lakewood City Council’s R.I.P. plan in terms of eroding renters’ and property owners’ right to privacy and security.
It is interesting to note that there are a number of U.S. court cases which explore what happens when law enforcement uses lethal force inside someone’s home after gaining entrance in violation of the Fourth Amendment. The question is, does the homeowner have the right to defend his right to privacy when a police officer or public official is inside his or her home illegally.
As the City of Lakewood pushes forward with their rental inspection program, I am confident they will work hard to create a smooth running inspection process. I am confident they will find cases to point to where they can say, “See, one look at this rental confirms we need R.I.P. On the other hand, I will not be surprised to learn of the city experiencing, no causing, unexpected negative consequences.
There is time. I still hope City Council will be able to escape the fog that has clouded their judgment regarding constitutional rights.
Joe, you do not have, what in legal terms is referred to as, ‘standing’.
Aside from owning no properties, you are not affected by the RHSP inasmuch as it has not drawn a single dollar from TENANTS yet. Tenants that will have to pay for it and will benefit from it.
Why would you allow further victimization of this demographic that can be evicted without cause? And if evicted, has that smear on their permanent Washington State record?
Why do you want Lakewood to number among the Washington cities having the worst living conditions?
As a former Public Safety Advisory Cmte member, you saw for yourself the number of substandard dwellings that sickened and endangered Lakewood citizens.
Why did the Council nearly unanimously agreed action is overdue? Even the lone holdout agreed something has to be done. Property owners agree something has to be done.
This action is no different than other Washington cities have taken. Are they wrong also?
Charles Ames
P.S.A.C. Chair
Lakewood Wa
To clarify, Washington State law does not have any provisions that allows a landlord to “evict” a tenant without cause.
The landlord or tenant may terminate a month-to-month rental agreement with at least 20 days written notice before the next rent due date, but that is not an eviction. If a landlord or tenant desires a more long-term relationship, they enter into a lease agreement which is typically for a one year period.
Terminating a tenancy is not a public record event and implies nothing negative on either party.
A court will only approve an eviction (or unlawful detainer) for cause, which is defined in RCW 59.18 http://apps.leg.wa.gov/RCW/default.aspx?cite=59.18
There is an excellent, plain English version of the Landlord-Tenant Act avaialble at http://www.washingtonlawhelp.org/resource/your-rights-as-a-tenant-in-washington#_Toc426978491
Every landlord and every tenant should read and understand the law. That alone will help resolve most misunderstanding and conflicts.
Thank you! I was fretting over people throwing around the term ‘eviction’ like that. I’ve been a landlord for over 20 years and have enjoyed most of my 50++++ tenants, I’ve lost track, probably much much more then that and I have had to ‘terminate’ our relationship/contract on a few occasions, but have YET to ‘evict’ anybody, knock on wood. And, trust me, an eviction is certain death to a tenant… it is very important that people understand the difference.
Mr. Sean Graver,
Thank you so very much for taking time to share your knowledge by writing your comment. You are totally on target. The Washington State Landlord Tenant Law 20 day notice provision is a two-way street. Good for the tenant and good for the landlord. As you hint, both sides should be aware of how it works before a rental agreement is executed.
The 20 day notice provision equals flexibility on both sides. I always tried to give my good tenants a lot more than the mandatory 20 days notice. If the tenant was a Mr. Problem Child, then for numerous reasons the minimum of 20 days notice is what I gave.
Joseph Boyle
Thank you once again Mr. Boyle.
Mr. Ames, I have standing. AND, you don’t know what you’re talking about.
People don’t live in substandard housing because their victims of an evil landlord. They manage to stay in business BECAUSE those people who they are renting too are otherwise incapable of attaining better accommodations. This will and does happen for a variety of reasons: 1. They aren’t legal and don’t have an SSN, thus it’s impossible to get a background check or credit check on them. 2. They don’t have sufficient income or documentation of income to pass screening for acceptable accommodations 3. They have a criminal history or credit report that bars their admittance to a respectable abode, or 4. They have an eviction or two or three on their record… and more then likely some combination of 1-4 above, AND… because of 1-4 above might also be paying a ridiculous amount of money for a, well, rat hole… their options??? probably under a freeway overpass somewhere.
I can almost guarantee you that our military community is not living in such conditions. The military is a very tight knit community with extensive resources to assist its members with a variety of issues to include housing. They are also fairly well compensated for their service, they have social security numbers, and have passed a variety of criminal checks to enlist. They are, for the most part, the kind of people who rise to every challenge, adequate housing being one of those challenges.
Such a program will result in these substandard housing options being denied occupancy and negatively impact the housing market while increasing the number of abandoned properties which come with their own problems… squatters, graffiti, dumping, criminal activity and an even worse blight on their neighbors.
This program is EXPENSIVE, not only to the responsible landlords, but also their tenants, and most especially to the city. It won’t be easy to implement it, police it, monitor it, administer it, or set it up… or they would have done so already. They will need personnel, equipment, vehicle, training, offices, office equipment, phones, computers, etc… Some within the city might see this as an opportunity to raise their revenue… it will in fact be quite costly, never hoping to cover the expense of operation with nearly nothing to show for it. They will, in fact, only be poking the bear.
Want to have a very real impact on substandard housing? Work to eliminate the source of the problem via police services, community outreach, economic development, etc.
Want to explore these options via some revenue under the guise of a rental inspection program that is less intrusive… FINE… Tacoma requires a business license for rental property and does a drive by every now and again, or so they say. Other places require an occupancy permit when the utilities change hands, possibly taking advantage of that window when a unit is EMPTY to do a walk thru, thus not demanding entry into someone’s home with the threat of a fine if they don’t comply. Many tenants will not even be available to witness the intrusion into their home as they will most likely take place during normal working hours, and who can afford to take a day off of work to at least be there when some stranger enters your home as sanctioned under such a program.
When occupancy is denied due to required repairs where the landlord simply doesn’t have the resources those people will lose their housing and most likely have few, if any, other options. How ‘fair’ will your housing inspection program be at that point… or will we be footing the bill to provide housing to these people vs tossing them out on the street?
And don’t think for a minute that this program won’t impact rents… it most certainly will… maybe not from the registration fees, MAYBE not from the inspection fees much, although that will most certainly be carried forward to the tenants, but when the inspectors come through with their clipboards and demand new wiring, new sink, new faucets, new tub, new plumbing, new roofing, new flooring, etc… these people will either bite off on a huge increase in rent, lose their housing while improvements are made and then the unit will be put back on the market and price them out.
Want housing standards? Apply them to everybody. I’ve seen plenty of owner occupied housing that seems to be falling down around their ears and negatively impacting property values for blocks around.
There is absolutely nothing fair about this, it won’t fix anything, it will be quite costly and, yes, is very intrusive to the tenants and property owners.
Your first sentence claims to have standing. Then you talk about everything but.
I have standing. I rent. More than half of Lakewood does.
“Lakewood renters do not possess enough brain power, energy or courage to manage their own rental housing safety without government . . . ”
Has nothing to do with any of the above. Renters are afraid of their landlords. If they complain, they
will be evicted. I know of an apartment complex that is full of roaches and bedbugs and the landlord will not take care of that problem. These are not druggie tenants but fall within that “working poor’ range. If a stove doesn’t work, oh well. Use someone else’s. The tenants feel this is all they deserve in housing and do not complain because if evicted they have no where to go. I suppose it is “better the devil you know.” And the landlord tenant act has no practical teeth.
Some tenants cannot “manage their own rental housing” out of basic fear.
The real issue is that Lakewood has a horrible lack of affordable housing and thus many are driven to these low-rent places. And they are stuck.
At the the 30,000-foot level, doesn’t a rental property belong to the owner? Shouldn’t the owner decide what he or she can do with the rental? I don’t think there are guns being pointed at renters forcing them to stay in a situation which is intolerable. Let the free market decide. If a rental is a dump, the renters can move. If the rent increases too much, the renters can move (and another rental owner will receive the rent).
I bristle when government tries to make everything “fair.” Should taxpayers be forced to pay a fee so everyone can have cars newer than model-year 2010, since older cars aren’t as safe, or even as nice? Is everyone entitled to a Cadillac? After all, the people driving Kia Optimas don’t have nearly as much comfort as those driving brand-new Cadillacs…
Asking for Kia is just fine. The “working poor” are not looking for a Cadillac. They are looking for SAFE CLEAN affordable housing. And honest landlords. The Kia is very honest.
Hi Susan,
If a family is having difficulty affording housing, one option is to do what is popular in Japan; have two or three families occupy a single rental home. My son who just graduated from college and is just getting started in his life away from home is sharing a 4-bedroom house near Seattle with 3 other young men. He doesn’t earn a whole lot of money right now, but this allows him to save money over the next few years so he can eventually move to a better place on his own. The home he is in is actually quite nice!
The sad fact is if a person can’t afford housing in a certain area of the Country, he or she might have to move to a place where housing is less expensive.
Yes, and that is a good, viable option. But even finding an affordable house in Lakewood isn’t easy. And if folks don’t have a car, have to be on busline etc etc. I know several people looking for rentals and if they could find a house to share would gladly do it! But, they are in Tillicum . . . . enough said, sadly.
I agree with Joes 5 points lets not only clean up the slumlords. It could be so much more!!! Go Trump!
Lets make Lakewood Great Again!!!
1. UNIFORMED POLICE OFFICER: Include a uniformed police officer on the rental housing inspection team for SAFETY. The officer can check everyone at the house for criminal warrants. Renters and landlords with a warrant get booked into jail.
2. DRUG DOG: Because our city council is pushing R.I.P. in the name of SAFETY then using a drug dog to locate and confiscate renter’s illegal drugs makes sense.
3. ILLEGAL ALIEN CHECK: Anyone in this country illegally has committed a crime. That is what the term “illegal alien” means. If they return after being deported, then they are a felon. That being said, the uniformed officer (Reference #1 above) should check each renter’s citizenship status.
4. STOLEN PROPERTY CHECK: The R.I.P. is a golden opportunity for victims of burglaries, car prowls, and thefts to get their property back including stolen vehicles. The R.I.P. is all about SAFETY, so why not take this opportunity to make our personal property SAFE by running serial numbers for stolen property checks?
5. FIREARMS – CONCEALED CARRY & OPEN CARRY: An on-site uniformed police officer can confiscate any weapons the renter may be wearing or have in his or her possession.
Let’s play this out… suppose Lakewood RIP comes in and declares the unit needs repairs or an ‘occupation’ permit will be denied/revoked. So, being a responsible person, the landlord terminates the rental agreement and asks the tenants to move. The tenants refuse. Now, at that point, who is responsible to get the tenants out of the unit? I SAY THE CITY. According to what I’ve read on the program, the property owner will be fined… but the property owner at this point has taken action to correct the problem, terminated the contract to empty the unit and prepare it for renovation. Who gets the fine? Who is responsible to remove the tenants? Who is responsible to pay the fine? The tenant? The landlord had taken proper measures to remove the tenant. It was the city’s actions that required the repairs/corrections so that the property could be brought up to code. Curious how they might manage this scenario. I suppose we’ll just cross that bridge when we get to it. They’re gonna need another city attorney to handle all of the situations that will arise… there goes $200-300,000 of their cherished revenues. Oh, and you can’t have an attorney without a secretary and legal aid… bam, another couple hundred thousand. These people will all need offices, vehicles, desks, computers, phones… won’t be too long before no one can afford to live in Lakewood.
Wow you guys!!
I didn’t realize, this really is Rocket Science!!!!!
Alyce Brame-Galyean
Volunteer Lakewood