It’s true. The landlord registration program will not move forward after all. The City Council has decided they will not enforce it.
Though “supporters of the program said it would help the city crack down on dilapidated rental properties while also gathering contact information on landlords,” by far the majority of landlords and tenants complained “the program would amount to government intrusion in their private lives, raising rents and business costs along the way.”
Said one landlord, “I am really unhappy about my Fourth Amendment rights being proposed to be invaded.”
Like the official’s announcement stopping play until an important, possibly game-deciding verdict is announced – ‘the ruling on the field is under further review’ – the city council heard, reflected, reviewed, and overturned the call.
The “city’s push to implement a mandatory registration program” is over.
Unfortunately, for now, that’s not our city of Lakewood, Washington. It’s Woodstock, Illinois where Katelyn Stanek reports in the “Woodstock Independent” this past October 13, the city council tossed their Rental Inspection Program (RIP).
If elected in Lakewood, however, Malcolm Russell would do the same.
“Had I been on the council I would have opposed it,” said Russell recently of Ordinance No. 644 that was passed 6-1 August 1, 2016.
“That is my public position. In my mailer I invite voters to contact me with questions, comments or opinions. The two questions I have received the most are (1) was my grandfather Admiral Russell (yes); and (2) how do I stand on the RIP?
“I was asked by the Tacoma News Tribune Editorial Board and I told them I opposed the RIP. We have regulations and code enforcement for all that already in Lakewood. I have experienced the Tacoma RIP and it’s a disaster, a waste of time, money, resources, and added bureaucracy.
“If elected I’d be willing to take action and measures to potentially overturn the RIP.”
Dang it! I thought for a minute this was legit. Ya, I’d vote for Malcolm Russell in a heartbeat IF I COULD and you betcha he’s against it. His ex is renting from me. If they go in there and demand a huge improvements she and their kids might be out on the street right along with dozens of others who might think that this program will help them and combat bad practices in rentals.
Always hoping to go after the non-voting public for more money, although this program will cost them far more then the revenue raised, I don’t live in Lakewood, thus I don’t have a vote, right along with a bunch of other landlords in Lakewood. They’re hoping this crap will carry through via lack of voter interest.
I’m ever so curious to know whether or not those dead bushes that Joe posted earlier were an owner-occupied property.
Ms. Tainer,
In answer to your question; owner-occupied.
When we think of slum dwellers, we most frequently think of bad tenants and bad landlords, but there are people with enough money to buy into decent neighborhoods and drag them down to slum conditions.
In this particular case, it is always something with these two owner-occupants. We wonder what is next.
Betsy, Even though you can’t vote, you can organize owners to sponsor a ballot initiative or donate to right-minded candidates and get them elected.
Thank you Mr. Rice. And thank you for keeping a watchful eye as this unfolds.
It’s likely that we will lose 3 of the city council members who voted for this in about a week…. well, at the end of the year. I sure hope so.
As for running a petition… Welllllll… been there, done that, and worked hard on a variety of campaigns opposing local initiatives. It’s a huge commitment. It’s exhausting. It will suck the life out of you. But I’m sure I don’t have to tell YOU that. Right?
Right now I’m running for city council in University Place, right next door to Lakewood. I also have a rental in University Place.
It’s been my experience that what happens in Lakewood doesn’t stay in Lakewood. I’ll do what I can to stop this one from creeping over our border.
It’s a push really what would be the most efficient way to handle it… a voter initiative/referendum OR just wait for that first court case, we all know it will happen, we all know what the outcome will be. It won’t go well for the city. There are too many programs just like this throughout the country that have done down in flames.
For now, I think, we’re all waiting to see how the election process goes and then wait to see if that will result in anything different. Lakewood is already up to their eyeballs in lawsuits. It is likely they will decide that they don’t need anymore courtroom experiences and will correct this action before it goes too far.
The petition has been drafted for an initiative. It is awaiting attorney review to ensure it’ll pass legal muster. One of the newly elected Lakewood City Council members ideally would make the first of their actions to appeal to the Municipal Research Services Center for Washington as to the susceptibility of Ordinance No. 644 to initiative. My guess, based upon my research, is that it is. However, when all current Lakewood City Councilmembers were polled individually as to whether they would inquire of MRSC, all refused.
Once we have an elected official – any elected official anywhere in the State of Washington – willing simply to pose this question of MRSC and share the answer and, following that, obtain attorney review for legal verbiage, we can go to an initiative.
An initiative would likely cost the city about $100,000. So, they would then have a choice. Send the RIP back to the drawing board by council action, or the people will do it for them.
There is a great deal of passion – angst and anger – over this issue. Thus, a small army of such like-minded people could conceivably obtain the necessary signatures in short order.
Number of valid signatures needed: 4,581 (15 percent of the total number of registered voters within the city as of the date of the last preceding city general election – RCW 35A.11.100, p.13-1, which, in Lakewood’s case was 30,542 as of November, 2016, 15% of which is 4,581 and add 20% = 916 for error to total 5,497, rounded off to 5,500.
Fifty people obtaining five signatures a day = 5,500 signatures in 22 successive days.
One month.
That’s not our city of Lakewood. Our City of Lakewood Council Members knows whats best.
Support the Rentors.
Thank you Lakewood City Council.
Another waste of time letter.
I guess the problem is solved.
Unless…
http://www.newsweek.com/investigators-probe-jared-kushner-company-over-vermin-infested-properties-696123
Could you please tell me the names oh the council members that voted for the RIP.?
I would like to vote against them, in our upcoming election.Thank you.
Mr. Finkas,
I was present the night Lakewood City Council voted on the RIP. Of the seven members on the council, six voted YES and one voted NO as follows:
Mayor Don Anderson – YES
Deputy Mayor Jason Whalen – YES
Council Member Mary Moss – YES
Council Member Michael Brandstetter – YES
Council Member Marie Barth – NO
Council Member Paul Bocchi – YES
Council Member John Simpson – YES
Only Deputy Mayor Jason Whalen and Council Members Mary Moss, Michael Brandstetter, and John Simpson are running for reelection.
Deputy Mayor Jason Whalen is running unopposed.
Mr. Paul Wagemann is running against incumbent Mary B. Moss.
Mr. Malcolm Russell is running against incumbent Mike Brandstetter.
Ms. Ria J. Johnson-Covington is running against incumbent John Simpson.
If all three incumbents lose their seats on the council, it is possible that three new council members plus Council Member Marie Barth could add up to four votes against the three remaining incumbents to turn the tide on RIP.
In order for that to happen, all candidates and the public need to understand that their Constitutional freedom or at least the spirit of their Constitutional freedom is being undermined by six members of our Lakewood City Council. We have to overcome apathy as the RIP is not seen as negatively impacting on most voters unless they own or rent rental property.
The voting record as reported above can be confirmed via Lakewood City Hall should you wish to have a more authoritative form of documentation.
Joseph Boyle
Current Lakewood City Councilmembers who are up for election and voted for the RIP: Mike Brandstetter, Mary Moss, John Simpson and Jason Whalen.
I’ve talked to each of my tenants and explained the RIP program. Several didn’t know about it. A a few said they were doing a write in name against Jason Whalen (turns out they wrote in my name, not that it will do any good). Each of them are voting against Brandstetter, Moss and Simpson. We’ve started to call it (RIP) the “Lakewood Landlord, Tenant, Harassment Program”. LTHP for short.
Robert, Write-ins are only half-effective because it’s just one less vote for the jerks. Your tenants should be voting for the strongest challenger!! Doing that DOUBLES your vote because it is one less for the jerk and one more for the challenger—it changes the difference by TWO instead of only one!
Kevin,
Whalen is running unopposed. No option except write-in.
That’s too bad. Should have solicited a candidate. I’ve helped a late write-in beat an 8-year sitting mayor. Sounds like you’re stuck this time around. Best wishes!
Current Lakewood City Councilmembers who are up for re-election and voted for the Rental Safety Program: Mike Brandstetter, Mary Moss, John Simpson and Jason Whalen.
Please vote for them again to keep us Renters Safe from the Slumlords!!!
$200,000 cost overrun on this program? This is not good fiscal management, and cannot be tolerated.
Are the non rental owners, of Lakewood unaware that they also will be footing the cost of this violation of rights, Rental Inspection Program ?
Fake News