Is Lakewood’s controversial Rental Housing Safety Program (RHSP) subject to a vote of the people by way of a referendum petition for which 3,750 valid signatures of Lakewood residents would qualify the measure for the ballot in one of the designated special elections established for that purpose?
Who knows?
The Municipal Research Services Center (MRSC) knows. But they’re not telling.
Unless the person asking is a “local government official or employee.”
Upon asking via email the referendum-applicability question of MRSC this past August 9, I received the following reply:
“Thank you for your inquiry. MRSC is a private, nonprofit research and information service for towns, cities, and counties in the state of Washington. We are only able to provide our services to local government officials and employees. From the information you provided, I cannot tell if you are eligible for MRSC services. Can you please clarify if you are local government official or employee?”
That same day, and because I was denied access, I inquired – again by email – of the only dissenting member of the Lakewood City Council – which passed (Aug.1) Ordinance No. 644 – as to whether they would appeal to MRSC for me and, for that matter, for the citizens of Lakewood who may, or may not, agree with the decision of the Council in which case their opportunity to express that opinion via a referendum might be an option.
There has been no indication – now approaching two months later – that an inquiry of MRSC was ever made from the Council level.
A local school board member however did seek a response from MRSC and on September 13 was told school board members did not fit MRSC’s “local government official or employee” criteria.
Specifically the MRSC spokesperson emailed, “Working for a city or town would qualify for our research services – unfortunately MRSC is not able to provide service to school board members, only those that work directly from a city/town.”
But what constitutes “a local government official or employee”?
Officially – according to the IRS – “any individual who serves as a public official is an employee of the government for whom he or she serves.
“Examples of public officers are: the President and the Vice President; a governor or mayor; the secretary of state; a member of a legislative body, such as a state legislature, county commission, city council, school board . . .” (emphasis mine).
Washington State’s definition of public official states likewise:
“‘Public office’ means any federal, state, judicial, county, city, town, school district . . .” (emphasis mine).
Even MRSC’s website itself declares who is deserving of their ‘services center’ services: “Every year we answer thousands of questions as we help staff and elected officials research policies, comply with state and federal laws, and improve day-to-day operations.”
One would think, in the interest of representation and a service-orientation, that both members of the City Council and MRSC would play ball rather than stonewall and take the initiative to provide the public whom they ostensibly serve the answer to the question below.
If there’s anyone – in the entire State of Washington – reading this that believes they meet the standards of public office that MRSC seems narrowly to define, and would happily – even begrudgingly – submit what follows to MRSC which purportedly “serves all 281 cities and towns in Washington, all 39 counties, and hundreds of special purpose districts, state agencies, and other government partners,” here’s their contact info.: mrsc@mrsc.org.
And here is the question:
Is Lakewood’s Ordinance No. 644 subject to referendum?
A referendum applicable to “Ordinance No. 644 Amending Chapter 5.60 of the Lakewood Municipal Code creating a rental housing safety program” (pp.93 ff) seems to meet at least two of the Initiative and Referendum (I&R) criteria as found in the I&R PDF in that the underlying action of Ord. No. 644 appears to be legislative, not administrative, given (a) Ord. No. 644 addresses a subject of “permanent and general character” (legislative) not “temporary or special character” (administrative); and (b) Ord. No. 644 appears to “prescribe a new policy or plan” (legislative), not merely pursuing a plan already adopted (administrative).
Administrative actions are not subject to I&R.
The legal question that needs to be answered is who has authority granted them – the city council or the voters with regards Ord. No. 644?
For example Regulating and licensing bicycles (p.34) is subject to I&R. “Every city and town by ordinance may establish and collect reasonable license fees from all persons riding a bicycle or other similar vehicle within its respective corporate limits, and may enforce the payment thereof by reasonable fines and penalties” (RCW 35.75.010).
With regards Ord. No. 644, the applicable RCW, specifically 59.18.125 begins, “Local municipalities may require that landlords provide a certificate of inspection . . . .”
The question then is whether “local municipalities” refers to the city council or the city’s voters?
If a “city can regulate and license bicycles” and that is subject to referendum, then that “a local municipality” can require rental inspections – is that subject to referendum?
Thank you in advance for your comprehensive reply.
Like I commented on before, you really need to hire a lawyer for this one. That Lowenberg Gate lawyer you used in the past should do.
Mr. Anonymous Ray,
While hiring a lawyer is a good idea, Mr. Anderson should feel no obligation to pay for a lawyer unless he owns a significant number of rentals. Mr. Anderson’s service to our community on this matter is his skill in recognizing the injustice perpetrated by our city council and his willingness to stand up for the speechless victims by continually writing about it in what amounts to our only public forum, The Suburban Times.
It is my recommendation that Lakewood rental property owners and Lakewood property managers form an association and that collectively through the association they hire a lawyer.
I will not become a part of what might be called Lakewood Area Landlord Association or LALA, because I no longer have any business interest in rental properties, nor do I have any ownership interest in a property management company.
Of course, LALA could bestow upon me an honorary membership for my prolific effort to reverse City Council’s misguided harmful RHSP decision. I would wear my LALA lapel pin proudly.
Joseph Boyle
It seems to me that you’ve answered your own question over and over again. It is subject to referendum. Get on with with it. The clock is ticking. Let’s get out there and gather the signatures required to put it on the ballot.
The MRSC isn’t there for us. I can’t help wondering where they get their funding, just a side note. Get over it.
A legal opinion on the matter, is just that, an opinion. And like they say everyone’s got one. Right?
Regardless of whatever legal opinion you manage to extract from anyone or any organization chances are better then not that Lakewood will challenge the filed referendum. Let’s just do it.
In my mind, such as it is, the city and city council should be working for us and with us to create a better community. THIS action clearly won’t serve anyone but them. It’s intrusive. SO WHAT if the state ‘allows’ it, that doesn’t mean that city’s have to do it or that the city council can just drop a gavel at the meeting after numerous dog and pony shows and create another revenue stream along with the offices, staff and equipment to service that stream.
We need to take this down before it goes live.
There’s a lot more items like this in our future. The state has withdrawn financial support of cities. In place of that financial support the state legislators are trying to fill the gap by creating and passing legislation that create new revenue opportunities for cities. An excellent examples of this are the Transportation Benefit Districts, Surface Water Management, Flood Control Zones, Conservation Districts, Franchise Fees, Local Sales Tax, Utility tax, etc. You get it. More to come.
Just because they create the opportunity at the state level for these new revenue streams doesn’t mean we have to lie down and take it. That’s what the referendum process is for. To give us a voice when our elected officials won’t listen to what we have to say.
JUST DO IT!
THANK YOU Betsy!!! Get on with it Joe and David! Your SubTimes rants do nothing for your cause.
OUR cause. I’m all in!
Count me in too! I said weeks ago I was VERY interested to be in a PRO-ACTIVE group that puts this thing up for a vote. It seems 9 out of 10 people are against it, so we should have NO PROBLEM getting their ‘money-making’ idea of RIP stopped IF we all join together and get the momentum up to MAKE IT HAPPEN……Where and HOW do we JUST DO IT ???
The steps are:
1. Finding someone, according to the criteria set by the Municipal Research Services Center (MRSC), who “works for a city or town” somewhere in the State of Washington, who is willing to submit the question as spelled out in the article.
2. Based on the answer from MRSC, if in fact Ord. 644 is subject to referendum, we find an attorney and gather folks of like mind to underwrite the cost the attorney would charge to review the petition which has already been drafted.
3. Once the attorney is satisfied the legal language of the petition will survive a likely challenge, we begin gathering signatures for a special election set aside for that purpose early in 2017.