Now that the City of Lakewood has changed the name of their proposed Rental Inspection Program (RIP) by adding the word SAFETY to create a new name which reads Rental Registration & Safety Inspection Program (RRSIP), it only makes sense for City Council to request that the city’s Public Safety Advisory Committee (PSAC) become involved in the research and evaluation process.
Mr. Charles Ames, who is a member and Assistant Chairman of PSAC, already has adamantly publicly declared during the July 5, 2016, public hearing that he strongly supports City Council’s RRSIP.
Lakewood City Hall where great decisions are made.I just finished two years on PSAC with my last meeting in July 2016. I am on record for being adamantly opposed to RRSIP.
PSAC could invite citizens to talk in favor and in opposition to RRSIP during either the public comment section or as guest speakers. I would be willing to speak for the opposition. PSAC can research ramifications of similar programs established in other cities across the nation including the Fourth Amendment issue.
City Council, please consider giving your very own Public Safety Advisory Committee one year to explore the pros and cons of RRSIP.
After an intelligent process PSAC can report back to City Council with one of several options.
- Recommendation for approval of RRSIP.
- Recommendation for disapproval of RRSIP.
- Recommendation for modifications to the RRSIP.
- Recommendation for entirely new plan.
- Recommendation that City Council do nothing regarding slumlord properties.
Now that the word SAFETY has been added to the title, Rental Registration & Safety Inspection Program, it makes solid sense for City Council to explore the matter with PSAC.
We don’t need another year by another committee to do what it took the PSAC already 18 months to produce by which to conclude it’s study into missing shopping carts. Chief Zaro was advised, I assume, by the PSAC to write a letter to the 10 retail stores most likely the cause of missing shopping carts. A similar, common-sense, approach to the RIP or whatever it’s now called, would be in order. Communicate with landlords and property managers in the city the research to-date as done by RIP/whatever architects that unless (implied threat) appropriate action is taken to bring substandard (unsafe) properties up to par then further enforcement procedures may have to be taken. This is not that difficult.
Mr. Anderson,
Thanks for commenting.
I clearly understand your point of view, especially your concern regarding the 18 month time delay. That is why I suggested a limit of 1 year. Plenty of time to accomplish intelligent research.
Look at it this way. If your worse nightmare, 18 months, were to occur, that would be an 18 month reprieve before the targeted victims, (property owners, property managers and renters), experience having the City of Lakewood trample on their constitutional rights.
My comment regarding trampling on Constitutional Rights applies to both their legal Fourth Amendment rights, which the city may be able to skirt around, and the spirit of their Fourth Amendment rights.
Joseph Boyle
Mr. Anderson,
Another thought. An 18 month reprieve might well give the City of Lakewood the needed time to determine how the multitude of various court cases around the country turn out as the constitutionality of rental inspection programs is challenged with lawsuits.
This benefit could save our city both time and legal costs.
Joseph Boyle
I am proud to count Joe among my friends. The first time we met he offered me a toxic brew he referred to as a ‘coppaccino’, Joe being a retired police officer.
Joe and I come at the issue from opposite sides; he, as a former property owner, I, as a renter.
But we both agree that we want to effectively protect Lakewood renters from the scourge of sub-standard housing.
As I said in my July 5th statement (to be published at some point in the future), ultimately the cost of the Program will be borne upon the renter. But it will be an assurance to Lakewood, its renters, its region and future, that we all are dedicated to quality of life.
Additional consideration is always welcome, but let us be mindful that we can amend any law in due course at any time; let’s dip a toe in the water.
Thanks, Joe. I owe you a coppacino.
Mr. Ames,
You are welcome. Thank you for the intelligent discourse. We need maximum thinking on this issue, which is why I appreciate your sharing your view.
Joseph Boyle
P.S. When may I collect my cappuccino?