Lakewood City Council,
If only 3 or 4 people read David Anderson’s letters as Mr. Wilson states in his comment at the bottom of Mr. Anderson’s article dated 12-29-16, titled, Letter: Three Questions To Ask A Prospective Landlord… then you should pay attention to what Mr. Anderson has to say. Why? Look at the stats.
Reader 1: Mr. Wilson disagrees with Mr. Anderson and lauds City Council for running roughshod over property owners and renters in the false name of safety.
Reader 2: Joe Boyle, that is me. I agree with Mr. Anderson and request that City Council reverse their course so as to not run roughshod over property owners and renters in the false name of safety.
Reader 3: My wife. I know she reads Mr. Anderson because we talk about David Anderson’s articles. She agrees with Mr. Anderson and would hope that city council would reverse their plan to run roughshod over property owners and renters in the false name of safety.
Reader 4: Any one of several property renters I have spoken to agree with Mr. Anderson and would hope city council would reverse their plan to run roughshod over property owners and renters in the false name of safety.
So let’s count. 4 readers. 1 For RIP and 3 Against RIP.
There you have it City Council, if you follow Mr. Wilson’s logic, you should now reverse your RIP decision which is the right thing to do.
Perhaps if it were identified correctly , Joe…
Meaning?
Mr. Ames,
My article is in response to a comment related to Mr. Wilson’s opinion. He said only 3 or 4 people read Mr. Anderson’s work. I counted up 4 readers in response. If you wish to be identified as a reader, please step forward and if Mr. Wilson agrees to revise the readership count for Mr. Anderson’s letter upward to 5, I can count you in and then report to City Council that 2 readers are in favor of RIP and 3 readers are against RIP.
Thanks for following the issue. There is always room in a free society for more than one viewpoint. I only wish you and I could agree.
If I have missed your point, because I was confused by your comment, then please expand for greater clarity.
Joseph Boyle
I read Mr. Anderson’s writings, although I have no opinion about Lakewood’s RIP proposal. I don’t reside in Lakewood and am not a property owner. I enjoy Mr. Anderson’s material and I enjoy reading Mr. Boyle’s writing as well.
Mr Ames,
Bottom line. You agree with RIP, YOU PAY for RIP, PERIOD. You should pay for services rendered by the City because you cannot make your own decisions.
As we say in the South: Mr Anderson is loud and long.
Count me as another reader! The problem with so many government programs is the names sound so wonderful it’s difficult to get people to understand what the rule, regulation, law, or edict will actually do. That’s the problem with judging an idea simply by its name and not its ultimate purpose or result.
For example, calling eugenics the “Social Improvement and Suffering Reduction Act” makes it no less reprehensible.
I read the posting
Mr. Wilson,
While you recently indicated only 3 or 4 people read David Anderson, it appears to me that from the growing comments of others there is now what we might term a spike in David Anderson’s readership.
I have done the math and have calculated that a minimum of 10 people read David Anderson and the number seems to be climbing at a meteoric or should I say metric rate.
So I say, thank you Mr. Anderson for keeping the RIP injustice alive which will get us closer and closer to the city’s first RiP lawsuit. When that or a referendum begins, we will have plenty to write about and I am confident your 10 readers will follow you closely.
Joseph Boyle
Thank you Joe for your words of wisdom! You can count me all in.
Evidently at least one member of the Lakewood City Council reads, on occasion at least, articles concerning RIP.
From the just published Council agenda packet for January 3, 2017 as found on the City’s website, “Deputy Whalen asked about a Suburban Times article about a public disclosure request (PDR) that was not responded to” (p.9 of 127).
Though there is nothing further in the minutes as to indicate the result of Whalen’s question, the fact that he raised it indicates (1) we’re being read; and (2) Whalen is apparently wondering why the request hasn’t been met.
Note: Though this question raised by Whalen is found in the Lakewood City Council Agenda Packet for January 3, 2017, Whalen actually asked the question as recorded in the minutes of the December 5, 2016 Lakewood City Council meeting.
The article to which Whalen refers on December 5 at the City Council meeting, was likely this one published December 4.
http://thesubtimes.com/2016/12/04/letter-rental-inspection-referendum-death-by-delay/
Observation:
Is 66 days – and counting – (as of today, Dec.30, 2016, the PDR filed with the City Oct.24 and acknowledged as received by certified mail Oct.25) not to have received the material sought, reasonable?
“Local government agencies are required to provide a reasonable estimate of time required to fill the request” (p.10 of 74 of the Public Records Act as found on the Municipal Research Services Center website).
I would have responded to his Mr Anderson’s article (because I like reading what he posts) but we’ve all been down with the flu at our house since the 28th.
I agree with him on the RIP issue and am keeping a very close eye on something like this creeping into my own city of University Place, which, given the track record of staff suggestions to council, would not surprise me in the least.
Personally, if I lived in Lakewood, I’d be making HUGE efforts at replacing those on the Lakewood City Council when they are next up for re-election.
Keep up the great posts David Anderson AND Joe Boyle….and Happy New Year!
Wow so many readers, NOT!
Seems obvious that the only ones against the Renter Safety Program are Landlords!
Again to the one city council member that reads these “Letters” good Job and carry on!
Thank you.
LMAO!!……….suck up.