In 2018, our City of Lakewood will force rental property owners into a game of financial Russian roulette.
Replica of revolver used for the highly lethal game of Russian roulette.This article contains both fact and fiction.
FICTION:
I can hear the news. City of Lakewood, Washington Bills 64-Year-Old Landlord $2,880,000 For Police Services. The article would go on to say that the City of Lakewood confiscated the landlord’s entire retirement life-savings.
This circle of dismay started in 2018 when the City of Lakewood forced the landlord to sign up for their new Residential Rental Inspection Program. While the landlord was fully cooperative with the city, his tenant was not.
The tenant refused to be treated like a common criminal. Actually, the renter pointed out that in Lakewood, criminals have more rights than renters. As Lakewood’s inspection team attempted to bully their way into the renter’s home, he barricaded the front door.
If Lakewood wants to enter a criminal’s home, the City has to obtain a warrant from a judge. If Lakewood wants to enter a renter’s home, all they have to do is intimidate and bully the landlord and renter with the threat of rental licensee revocation.
The tenant refused to give up his Fourth Amendment Rights. Lakewood tried to explain that they had developed a new tricky end-run to nullify the tenant’s rights. Lakewood told the tenant he had no rights, but the renter would not listen.
Remember, the landlord was fully cooperative. He gave the City a front door key and the confidential code to the burglar alarm. He provided the City the tenant’s name, date of birth, place of employment and Social Security Number. The landlord provided maximum cooperation even though his actions and disclosures made him complicit with the city in violating the tenant’s right to privacy.
Shots were fired. Police responded. SWAT was brought in. Black Hawk helicopters were hovering. This was bigger than the 51 day Waco, Texas siege. There were TV cameras, a full team of crack The Suburban Times reporters, along with a strong contingent of local citizen curiosity seekers. Oh, someone spotted Dave Anderson in the crowd standing behind the yellow Police tape.
Sixty days passed and the tenant never gave up. The Lakewood rental inspection team ended up burning the house to the ground. One citizen died and seven were injured. Sound familiar?
The landlord learned something the hard way. When he signed up for the mandatory Residential Rental Inspection Program, the fine print included Lakewood City Clause 5.60.050E which dictated that any law enforcement expense generated by a mandatory rental inspection “shall be borne by the licensee”.
After the City of Lakewood stripped him of his life savings, the elderly landlord became homeless. He could not even afford to live in one of Lakewood’s Residential Rental Inspection Program qualified low-,income apartments with the spiffy 3 color gold seal of safe habitation sticker affixed to the front door.
The old broken down landlord can be seen shuffling around the city pushing a stolen red shopping cart.
Displayed on the side of his shopping cart are two large colorful signs announcing that he is running for Lakewood City Council. He wants to bring back private property rights and the Fourth Amendment to Lakewood Citizens.
Could my fictional account ever come to pass? You tell me. Read section 5.60.050E / Employment of Law Enforcement Officers which can be found in the new City of Lakewood Ordinance. I have cut and pasted the entire section word for word below.
FACT:
City of Lakewood Residential Rental Inspection Plan provision underlined and in bold print follows:
5.60.050 Employment of Law Enforcement Officers.
In the event it becomes necessary for the City to require that a licensee secure the services of one or more law enforcement officer(s) to properly enforce the applicable laws, rules and regulations and to maintain order in the Rental-housing Complex, all expense for such service shall be borne by the licensee, and it is his duty to secure the services of such officer or officers at a level prescribed by the City and as are deemed by the City to be necessary to preserve order and enforce the rules and regulations prescribed in this Title, the City Code and State law. Failure to comply with this requirement, if imposed by the City, will result in revocation of the business license in the manner prescribed by the City Code. (Ord. 255 § 1 (part), 2001; Ord. 219 § 1 (part), 1999.)
With this clause in force, a rental property owner cannot afford to own investment property in the City of Lakewood.
If a private citizen decides to purchase or continue to own investment property in Lakewood on or after the year 2018, the Residential Rental Inspection Program will make property ownership like playing financial Russian Roulette. By owning Lakewood rental property, the landlord will be putting the gun to his own head. The City of Lakewood will decide how many rounds, if any, to load into the gun. Once the Russian Roulette game is set, our Lakewood City Council and Lakewood City staff will pull the trigger.
Good luck Lakewood landlords. It is my hope that my FICTION does not become your FACT, but if it does, know that the City of Lakewood is poised to destroy you and your family for the rest of your life based on the actions of your tenant.
If I am wrong and the city is right, then would it not make as much sense for Lakewood to start charging domestic violence victims for police services?
I have said it before, but the landlords in the smaller cities and towns nearby should be worried. Once Lakewood has this implemented and is making money. Dupont, Steilacoom, Spanaway, heck even unincorporated Pierce county.
In my opinion this is such an over reach by the city of Lakewood. Where the heck is Lakewood cares on this one they call themselves watchdogs for citizens. somebody needs to say something!
“Landlords in the smaller cities and towns nearby should be worried.”
True. The headline (just last week, Sept.21, out of Portland, Maine) by Jacob Posik read: “Unlawful rental registries; Coming soon to a city near you” (link available).
“Where the heck is Lakewood cares on this one they call themselves watchdogs for citizens, somebody needs to say something!”
Response: This is now the 83rd article (two more in the Tacoma News Tribune to make 85) in this publication of The Suburban Times. “Something” has been said. A lot has been said. And more will be said. Here’s why.
On July 27, 2015 (p.015, link available) of their minutes, the current City Councilmembers (by way of Heidi Wachter, City Attorney) expressed their fear of the people’s reaction to the Rental Inspection Program, specifically “potential challenges to the program such as citizen initiative and litigation.”
On October 17, 2016, each of the current City Councilmembers was polled individually regarding the initiative matter, something one would think a representative – regardless of their position on the matter – would honestly inquire on behalf of the people they represent.
Four did not respond; one offered to provide a list of attorneys; one said they would look into the susceptibility to initiative of the Rental Inspection Program but then did not, there having been nothing further; and one even said rather emphatically “No.”
Now that the current City Councilmembers have tiptoed as close to the legal sideline as possible to stay within the law while implementing the Rental Inspection Program (although legal challenges across the country are finding otherwise – links available), nevertheless (a parallel is the unpopularity of the NFL’s stand – or rather knee) the current City Councilmembers likewise face the ire of their former fan base: the citizens, who by way of initiative, are preparing.
But, first things first. Four current City Councilmembers – Brandstetter, Whalen, Moss and Simpson – are up for election with ballots to be mailed less than one month from now (October 20).
All four voted for the Rental Inspection Program.
When Joe Boyle and David Anderson join forces on an issue such as this, Lakewood City Council needs to take notice. Excellent points by both of you. If this ordinance were enacted, I would not rent in the city of Lakewood, because I value my Constitutional right to privacy. I can just imagine a special locked (one hopes!) Key Room in the Lakewood City Hall or Police Department, with an array of hundreds of house/apartment keys, each labeled with the address and property owner’s name. This sounds to me like a police state.
Thank you, Mary. Some clarification however. As to your concern “if this ordinance were enacted,” it has. On August 1, 2016, Ordinance No. 644 establishing the Rental Inspection Program became law in the City of Lakewood, passed by the current City Councilmembers in a 6-1 vote, Marie Barth alone objecting based on her concerns that there were enough laws on the books in Lakewood already related to this issue.
Before the current City Councilmembers voted that night, they heard the unmistakable (a few mere decibels short of a sonic boom) and understandable reaction from property managers, landlords, housing associations, realtors, etc.:
“Way too much regulation/expense compared to the problem”; “Another layer of government/taxes”; “Penalizing the majority of the good landlords/owners for the conditions maintained by the minority of the bad landlords/owners”; “Government intrusion into private business.”
Yet the current City Councilmembers voted for it anyway.
That you value your constitutional right to privacy is the key issue in this whole debate, one the current City Councilmembers have – in the process of passing a law to gain access to the interior of your dwelling despite your constitutional objections – conveniently left unaddressed.
From one of the legal court challenges to Rental Inspection Programs for which I wrote earlier that links were available:
“The reasons offered for upholding these schemes are insufficient to justify such a substantial weakening of constitutional protections, particularly where many alternatives to suspicionless searches exist to advance what valid interests local authorities may have.”
Thank you! Keep ’em coming.
It’s starting! Yay! Nothing you can do about it!
Get over it you slumlords!
I stopped the Rental Inspection Program in San Luis Obispo CA with an Initiative. Also got the mayor unelected. Other cities should do the same. Glad to help with advice before a shootout occurs. End the Nazi invasion of homes. Kevin Rice (805) 602-2616
Thank you Kevin. I’ve just reading all I can about your struggle. What a mess. Good fight. I’m so confused… the city modified your initiative, a lawsuit and settlement, AND ??? the initiative failed, but the program has been dismantled by the city council FOR NOW. Did I get that right? This must have totally consumed your life for more then a year.
We have around 60,000 population and some 24,000-26,000 residential units with just under half of them being identified as rentals or non-owner occupied. In our August primaries our county recorded a 12.4% voter turnout. Disgusting.
It would seem, by the comments provided to articles related to his topic that renters, who generally turn out for elections even less frequently then homeowners, seem to be under the impression that such a program will solve all of their problems related to renting, to include affordable housing.
We have a huge military installation very nearby which may account for our level of saturation of rental units. ALSO, Lakewood housing remains very competitive in the region, both for purchase as well as rental, as it is mostly older, smaller homes with a somewhat lower mean value AND the local utilities and property taxes are also well under surrounding communities which make Lakewood a desirable location.
I tend to think that part of the appeal of such a program is that it does impact less then 50% of households (rentals). Those being primarily filled by military or people who don’t ‘really’ view Lakewood as their home/community, and thus will put up very little residence, and also that many of the residential rental units are owned by people who do not live in the community and thus don’t really concern themselves with local issues… figuring if they don’t like it they’ll just sell. Right? So, in that light, it’s a lot like any number of sin taxes, there just isn’t enough motivation that can be gleaned from the effected demographic to put up a fight, which makes them an easy target for a special taxing/fee/program (cough) in the best interest of the general public. These type of money grabs are especially appealing with they can be approved via council vote in the dark of night. You can just imagine if 12.4% of the registered voters vote, how much less keep an eye on what goes on in the city council meeting.
I admire the level of energy and commitment that you showed to this issue in your community and I applaud you for being a highly involved renter in your community.