The results of a survey of the strength of Lakewood’s rental market are in.
A survey?
Lakewood’s City Council initially considered a survey – in fact “a robust tenant/landlord outreach educational program” (p.9 of 12) – when deliberating how best to address substandard housing in the city, but opted instead to pass (August 1) the controversial Rental Inspection Program (RIP), Ordinance No. 644.
No survey.
Granted, Lakewood’s recently completed Apartment Survey wasn’t intended to inquire as to adequate food preparation space or wattage of light bulbs, just two of the 69 RIP items (seven pages) to be checked by a city-approved inspector.
And the results of Lakewood’s Apartment Survey were based on responses from only 1,882 rental units – represented by 11 “apartment communities” – in contrast to the estimated 13,700 rental units whose thresholds Lakewood will start crossing to inspect interiors potentially by the end of this year.
In the wide, wide net (every rental unit, every landlord, with few exceptions) Lakewood is casting over the city, RIP architects anticipate ensnaring 10-15 percent that – according to Lakewood’s checklist – don’t measure up. This percentage of so-called slumlords is based on figures Lakewood says exists typically in cities elsewhere with similar programs.
Interestingly, 10 percent of 13,700 estimated total rental units in Lakewood – the bad guys – is significantly less than the 1,882 rental units that were surveyed to show Lakewood’s rental happy side.
Rather ironic that a survey could basically do – certainly round up as many or more on the plus side of the ledger – what “a robust tenant/landlord outreach educational program” might have done to correct deficiencies.
Were it even tried.
But it wasn’t.
And yet how did the year-and-a-half missing shopping cart study end up – the study that Public Safety Advisory Committee members were tasked to recommend to council an ordinance concerning derelict and abandoned grocery four-wheelers?
No ordinance. Rather a letter.
The Police Chief wrote a letter to the most likely stores whose carts were cluttering the landscape and asked for their cooperation.
And the Council approved that letter.
No law. Rather a letter.
But not RIP. The Council bypassed a rather simple and similar communication piece and instead crafted an onerous law with details yet to be determined by which to inspect every single rental unit, good, bad and ugly.
Ironic that when Lakewood wanted to know how satisfied citizens were with their city, they took a survey.
When Lakewood launched its page for its Community Vision Plan, giving residents a chance to chart the course of their community, they took a survey.
When Lakewood’s City Council intimated the possibility that in 2013-14 they would be asking Lakewood voters “to raise property taxes to pay for road work and street maintenance,” they took a “Street and Parks” survey that appeared to be gauging public support for the tax increase.
When citizens complained that the council “has steadfastly refused to reach out and feel the pulse of the people,” (Ed Kane, American Community Journal, Vol.2, No. 01, p.1, February, 2003) and the issue was the 2003 launching by activist groups of a petition drive to bring the initiative/referendum process to the city, finally, after two years of debate, the city council – which had balked all along opposing the people’s right to decide matters via initiative and referendum – put it to an advisory vote agreeing to abide by the peoples’ decision. Initiative and Referendum passed 72 to 28 percent.
All of which perhaps explains why controversial matters are decided by the council, everything else decided by survey.
Thank you again Mr. Anderson. This program is a great deal of overreach, intrusive and expensive, very expensive, in oh so many ways… and I’m not JUST talking about the proposed $100/year membership dues.
The city of Lakewood has so many advantages over other small cities. The economic base is sound and growing which goes a long way to relieving the tax burden of property owners, which in turn reduces the cost of living, ie, renting. It makes Lakewood a desirable location to own or rent a home.
I spoke with a young lady not long ago who had just moved here from Colorado. She was working in Tacoma. She had chosen an apartment in Lakewood. I asked her why, here’s what she said, ‘I really wanted to live in Tacoma, Fircrest or University Place but I couldn’t afford to.’.
Why? Because the properties, for the most part, are older, they don’t assess so high as in other nearby communities, and the local revenue, for city operation, is primarily picked up by the business, retail and industrial segment. The local water service is MUCH more affordable then TPU which services Tacoma and University Place and, yes, even the garbage service is better and slightly less. The city of Lakewood doesn’t gauge the residents of Lakewood with excessive Surface Water Charges, yet.
The State of Washington has withdrawn financial support to cities. It’s real. Instead the state legislative branches have been actively creating new ways to slice and dice our tax base by creating new and different ways for cities to raise revenue via a city council vote. With each new ‘program’ or opportunity, which are typically voted on by the city council, quietly and with very little opposition… we gain franchise fees and utility tax on our sewer bill. a Transportation Benefit District, new park and rec opportunities, etc… the list goes on and cities are scrambling to take advantage of these programs.
Once a few cities get on board and successfully create these programs, new fees and revenue streams, the snowball gathers momentum and soon these programs are operating in every city.
The discussion soon follows regarding affordable housing, exemptions for households that are struggling to meet the demands of the rising cost of living and then we all start fighting among ourselves. Tenants and property owners alike being forces from their homes due to rising costs and the city claiming that they simply don’t have enough money and have instituted these programs for the general ‘public benefit’.
Then, predictably, the state claims that the state sales tax model simply isn’t working for us anymore. Why? Because the state sales tax model depends on us spending money, having money to spend. The state has not yet figured out a way to tax our mortgages and rents. Groceries aren’t taxed… well, most, the list of what is and is not considered a food item is changing all the time.
When they reduce our ‘expendable income’ with taxes, fees, programs, charges, etc… they take money out of the economy. Then are baffled at the outcome of a slower economy and a reduced revenue stream via sales tax.
There are oh so many things wrong with the RIP program. I’d like to say that I have a ‘primary concern’, in reality there are so many things wrong with it that my concerns are a fairly long list. Let’s hit the highlights.
-Intrusive nature – demanding entry into people’s homes
-Costs – offices, paper, equipment, vehicles, personnel, lawsuits (?maybe)
-Affordable Housing – taking a wrecking ball to that with every reach into our pockets for more money
-The dismantling of our economy via over reach for more and more revenue streams
-Nickel and diming us to death with a tax code that becomes a shell game which will not be easily undone.
It’s simply not good business. And we cannot allow it to stand. We need to stop it before it costs us and our city a dime. Before they create new office space. Before they buy new vehicles. Before the hire new staff to support it. And, before they invade someone’s home with their clipboard and create a long list of required repairs and modifications, which will most certainly increase the cost of housing.
I don’t understand why our locally elected city council members and state legislators can’t see how they are being manipulated into thinking that any of this could possibly be good.
Ms. Tainer, great observations and comments. Typically when an issue catches my eye I can write an article, maybe two. The RIP is such a pathetic idea, it continues to provide an unending source of ideas for articles from multiple points of view.
I have written 6 – 10 articles myself already and spoke twice to our City Council. As hard as it is to believe, I am working on yet another article which should effectively demonstrate, in another way, how bad the RIP idea is.
Stand by.
Joseph Boyle
There.
Fixed that.
I am sad to say that I am beyond caring how this gets fixed-I can only hope that the “apartment complex” behind me is first on the list of whatever is decided on. I can no longer afford to replace fencing, lighting, landscape, automatic gate openers, security, and poisoned pets while a landlord who has had my calls blocked and will not cash out for an on-site manager or lighting sits back and rakes in the section 8 rent checks. It does not pay (in this world) to be a law-abiding responsible citizen period……..
Thank God and Council for the RENTAL HOUSING SAFETY PROGRAM INSPECTION !!!!!
RIP??? NOT!
Nobody likes a survey anyway.