I am writing my second article in my planned three-part series. In this article I discuss the landlord’s viewpoint regarding the City of Lakewood’s Rental Housing Safety Program, (RHSP), commonly referred to as RIP. I hasten to say at least one landlord’s viewpoint.
My updated plan is to write a series of four articles relating to three different points of view as follows:
1. RIP – Renter’s Viewpoint.
2. RIP – Landlord’s Viewpoint Part I Part II.
3. RIP – City of Lakewood’s Viewpoint.
My last article in The Suburban Times titled Westside Story – RIP – Renter’s Viewpoint discussed how Lakewood’s impact on the renter hurt rather than helped a low-income resident of our city.
Following my interview with the renter, I interviewed the landlord on at least three separate occasions.
The landlord told me the following.
After learning the City of Lakewood planned to implement the RHSP, they decided to attend the City of Lakewood’s first Landlord Training Meeting.
Based on what they learned at the meeting, they concluded it is not worth the hassle to own rental property in Lakewood where local government would potentially punish them with government overreach.
Had it not been for the City of Lakewood’s City Council enacting the RHSP, they would have allowed the renter to occupy their rental home forever at $700 per month. They had promised their renter the rent would never change.
The landlord gave their long-term tenant a written 30-day notice to vacate the property.
The takeaway for the landlord was, the City of Lakewood’s RHSP is a blatant government overreach. In the landlord’s mind, their 1943 vintage house might easily have issues that would trigger a failure rating on the inspection.
Landlord purchased 1943 vintage single family home 25 years ago, circa 1992.From the landlord’s viewpoint, there is always the distinct possibility of having an overzealous, badge happy, nitpicking, inspector white-knuckling a clipboard, who suffers from an ego problem and no common sense. The inspector can hide behind his city inspector badge and City Council’s pet shield, the word SAFETY.
Don’t for a moment think that it cannot happen. The City of Lakewood has already experienced a multitude of adverse personnel problems.
This kind of nightmare can lead to all sorts of negative ramifications.
Elizabeth’s landlord bought the rental home 25 years ago at which time they completed a total remodel of the residence.
So what we have is a landlord who seems to operate on a laissez-faire hands-off basis. Live and let live is the predominant theme. The renter pays $700 forever, which is an excellent deal for a low-income renter. The landlord does not get bogged down with management minutia.
When compared to market rents of up to $1400, the renter could afford to make improvements to the property and still be dollars ahead. Regardless of what anyone might think, the arrangement is a win-win in the minds of the involved parties.
I agree with the landlord. If I still owned rental properties in Lakewood, I would sell them all to avoid dealing with this Socialistic bureaucratic nightmare.
Most importantly, as a landlord, I would want to avoid the City of Lakewood’s plan to make second-class citizens out of people just because they are renters and thereby violate their Constitutional Rights or at least the spirit of their Constitutional Rights.
Based on the City of Lakewood’s problem-solving model, which is to punish all rental property owners for the sins of a few, Lakewood is starting to earn a negative reputation for being unfriendly to business which is reason enough for a landlord to fold his cards and leave Lakewood.
With all that said, I thought I was finished with the landlord’s viewpoint. I planned to move on to my third article which would talk about the City of Lakewood’s viewpoint.
I have a change of plans. After the renter moved out and the landlord took their property back, their viewpoint changed. I will report the landlord’s updated perspective in my next RIP article. Stand by for that report.
Unfortunately
After renting two single family homes in Oakbrook for 25 years I will be selling all my properties.
I just can not stand the thought of the City coming and invading my tenants privacy with a 4 page inspection report on these beautifully maintained homes.
I can’t stand the City of Lakewood’s Guilty until proven innocent attitude toward all landlords.
I’m Out!
Rentals should meet standards.
Waste of Time.
Home ownership, P.O. Boxes, and the RIP
We received our second or third letter from the City of Lakewood telling us that we need to register for the RIP. We have lived in and owned our home for 43 years. We questioned the person at the “RHSP hotline” as to why, when the letter stated that the property information was cross referenced with the Pierce County Tax Assessor they neglected to actually check ownership and residents. They ASSUMED that since we had a P.O. Box, we were renters. Another waste of Lakewood’s taxpayer’s dollar, doing an incomplete job. Wonder how many other homeowners with P.O. Boxes have received the letters and at what expense to the city, beside the inconvenience to the homeowner.
Joe,
You and David Anderson are truly amazing people!
How can we take this RIP to the WA State Supreme Court to get our 4th Amandment right back?
I totally agree with all your articles, however they are not going to solve the problem. The City of Lakewood is laughing at us and saying “We make the rules, we always know what’s best for the renters.
We are pursuing legal and legislative channels. Stay tuned. More to come.
Waste of time.
Mr. Anderson, if this issue is as contentious and divisive as you claim it to be, the question must be asked as to why three sitting council members defeated the challengers you endorsed. One member won by a 2-1 margin. Why is that?
I think that is a fair question. Here are some suggested answers:
(1) The 81st article – in what now numbers 102 and counting – addressing this issue, was co-authored by Councilmembers Brandstetter and Bocchi. That was the only article authored in this publication from those who made this decision. The Suburban Times once recorded its readership at 6,000 active, 20,000 hits daily. Odd that such a communication opportunity as this presents – for dialogue, for debate, for discussion of matters of such magnitude – would be held in such little regard by those who, one would think, would want to present their side. All to surmise this first reason as to the 2-1 margin of victory by one incumbent (by the way, at last count, Moss led Wagemann by only 122 votes) that maybe the victorious were hoping by not defending their decision here that the majority would blissfully cast their ballots rather blindly.
(2) While I do in fact claim this issue to be contentious and divisive, I am obviously not alone. Councilmember Barth for example, the lone holdout for common sense and less-intrusive government, said that it was the most difficult decision the council has ever made, perhaps in the history of the city. City Attorney Heidi Wachter acknowledged the controversial nature of the beast as well. That being the case, while the election returns do not reflect the hoped-for outcome, at least from my point of view, the divisiveness, and contention, and angst over this issue has not only been admitted, but there is more of the same to come.
(3) A single election, albeit three seats left unchanged, is not, again obviously, a final verdict. The game is not over until what’s-her-name sings. It took Kansas 20 years to throw out their rental inspection programs statewide, accomplished just this November. It took William Wilberforce 20 years to shame England’s House of Commons into ending the slave trade. Any battle worth fighting – and this is one – is not one-and-done. Stay tuned.
Marty,
The answer is 1) Voter apathy. 60,000 Lakewood citizens. 35,000 registered voters. Only 25% of voters voted. 2) Most citizens, including property owners, have no idea about the RIP. 3) Incumbents always have the edge just because they are already in power. 4) Name familiarity. Of the few who do vote, many will vote based on name familiarity or they will vote for the candidate with the most political signs.
Should there be an incident involving a giant lawsuit, a constitutional rights violation, death or injury because of the incumbent’s support of the RIP, perhaps voters will take a second look.
I hope this answers your question.
In responding to your question, I am providing you with my answer and I am not speaking for Mr. Anderson.
Joseph Boyle
4th Amendment right didn’t catch spell check.
It’s okay, Norm. Right now the City of Lakewood is making a mockery of our US IV-Amandment.
Amendment, Amandment; we know what you mean, but unfortunately, no matter how you spell this important single word which describes one of our most basic Constitutional Rights, Lakewood City Council does not get it.
Of course, as someone said, and I am not sure who, “It is not over until it is over.”
Joseph Boyle
Will the city extend their RIP program to include commercial properties as well as residential ??? There are enough vacancies all ready , in those properties. Could this have anything to do with the maximum excise tax and extra charge on vehicle licenses the city imposes on the citizens ?
Mr. Boyle, I must respond to one of your comments; the one in which you write “death or injury because of the incumbent’s support of the RIP”. Do you actually think that might happen? Being a police officer, I’m certain you were trained to anticipate the worst actions that could be taken by people, but death? But, thanks to you and to Mr. Anderson for expressing your views.
Marty,
I expect you are correct. My law enforcement background along with following national and international news gives me a view of life that most citizens are not privy to. Having retired from law enforcement, I am authorized to subscribe to a national report service, which I read on a daily basis. The reports give me a clear picture of what people do to each other.
I am not trying to be sensational, but rather realistic related to the worse case scenarios. The RIP is ripe for an injury or death incident. Of course, a clear-thinking human being will not resort to any action that will generate injury or death. It should be a matter for our courts. I am sad to report to you that not all human beings are clear thinkers.
Am I saying injury and death will happen for certain? No. And I hope my worse case projection never occurs. Can we find ourselves in a situation where our community suffers injury or death? Absolutely.
Whether a citizen is right or wrong, if the citizen perceives they are right in not allowing our local government to violate their Constitutional Rights, then it becomes entirely possible injury and death will follow. Toss in some mental illness, booze or drug high and away you go; shots fired.
Have you ever dealt with a Constitutionalist? They are like from another planet. They do not think they need to have a driver’s license or license plates. They certainly are not going to allow a government they do not recognize into their home. That is a dangerous situation.
Every time The City of Lakewood and the RIP inspector knocks on a renter’s door sent there by our Lakewood City Council, they will have no way of knowing what is on the other side of that door.
After forensics draws the chalk outlines around the bodies in front of the RIP inspection site, that is when Lakewood stands to get some mud on their untarnished image if the court decides Lakewood had no business forcing their inspector into someone’s private home.
If the inspector and the cops had no right to be inside the home, then the bigger question is why did anyone have to get injured or killed?
Thanks for commenting and for asking intelligent questions.
Joseph Boyle