We’ll light the Official City Christmas Tree this Friday, the day after the deadline to register your rental property for inspection.
Santa will arrive by fire truck at 6 P.M. – skipping the chimney scene – and the government- or government-approved inspector will be knocking on your door – bypassing invited-guest pleasantries – sometime in January.
In the spirit of the holiday, the City of Lakewood, Washington has a list, a rental inspection list. They’ll be checking it twice, more often than that even, to ensure compliance with a law that to many in the city is more akin to a program in search of a problem.
In fact, some have threatened to see – and sue – the city in court.
In a word, it’s ‘complex’.
The city maintains that the wording of their law inserting inspector-types into every rental property means just that: Every. Single. One. At least every single one that is not exempted.
‘Not so fast,’ say “several individuals,” (November 27 Study Session, p.013) who’ve “interpreted LMC 5.60 as applying only to ‘Rental-housing Complexes’ due to the language found in LMC 5.60.020, Business License – Fee, which states the following:
“Each multi-housing complex in the City, as defined herein, shall obtain and maintain in good order a Rental-housing Complex license issued by the City in accordance with the procedures of Title 5 of this Code.”
Even a cursory rendering of ‘complex’ is to understand the intended number as many, not singular: “a group of similar buildings or facilities on the same site.”
Given these “several individuals have indicated that future legal challenges may follow regarding this issue,” city staff are now suggesting “City Council should consider whether the language of LMC 5.60 warrants revisiting at a future date.”
Perhaps also at a future date the ACLU of Washington will weigh in as it did in Virginia:
“If there is one thing every American understands” – (at least most Americans) – “it’s that government officials don’t have the right to enter our homes unless they have a warrant or there’s a true emergency,” said ACLU of Virginia Executive Director Kent Willis.
“Local governments have wide latitude to enforce building codes,” added Willis. “But our Constitution demands checks and balances, and the check on code enforcement officials when they want to enter your home is judicial oversight.
“The Supreme Court has held that the Fourth Amendment protects the right of tenants and owners to refuse warrantless inspections with impunity. In order to pass constitutional muster,” (rental inspection ordinances) “must be amended to make it clear that tenants and owners may refuse to consent to inspections and that inspectors must have a warrant when consent is not given.”
Similar was the ruling of a U.S. Court of Appeals when it struck down a rental inspection ordinance: “The court fully understands that the City has a valid and important governmental interest in protecting the public, however, the court sees no reason why this should be done at the expense of infringing on rights guaranteed by the Fourth Amendment to the United States Constitution.”
The city of Lakewoods landlord/tenant harassment program brochure indicates a registration deadline of January 1, 2018. Is this incorrect as well?
The long answer appears to be that the quarter-of-a-million-dollar software program to support the Rental Inspection Program has some glitches – “coding issues” – per the city.
Following the first registration letter sent to property owners (which I believe had the deadline of Nov.30), “as of early morning November 21, 4,468 properties (88.1 percent) remained unregistered.”
The city has sent a second letter. And a third is planned prior to 2018 and a fourth in early 2018. (All of this per the link provided at the end of this reply).
“In January 2018, an auto-generated lottery of all rental properties, regardless of registration, will occur.” How anyone is supposed to ‘win’ the lottery if they don’t have a ticket, is apparently – or not – not a problem. Somehow.
Then there’s this: “CED (Community Economic Development) will work with property owners throughout 2018 to achieve full registration.”
Stay with me here.
As one might expect then, there is no date in the materials presented the Council (per the link), as least as far as I could find, that indicates anything by way of a drop-dead deadline. The successive letters may indicate the cutoff is yet TBD.
There was this though. Under FAQ on the City Website (click on the three houses on the right then scroll down to FAQ and when there scroll down to near the very bottom – as low as you can go – and there is this hyperlink under the headline “Program Updates.” Click on that hyperlink where you presumably are hoping to obtain the update to the program information you’re seeking, and a new screen will appear stating “This resource cannot be found. HTTP404.”
So that’s a dead end. Also.
Here’s the link, for what it’s worth, though you might try calling someone who promises to answer the phone: 253-983-7850.
https://www.cityoflakewood.us/documents/city_council/city_council_agenda_packets/2017_11_27_Council_Study_Session_Agenda.pdf
Sounds like the Obamacare launch, foul ups, and will eventually result on the program collapsing on itself. This is typically what happens when government steps outside the boundaries of what government should constitutionally be about: incompetence, unintended consequences, problems unsolved or worse, a waste of tax payer money. Nothing for the City of Lakewood’s council or bureaucrats to be proud of.
Mr. Anderson, Robert, and JohnA,
All 3 of you fellows are on target.
1. Mr. Anderson, I too spoke with a landlord regarding the R.I.P. not applying to him because of the defective language in the City of Lakewood Document. He owns a single-family residence that would not be covered according to the language found in LW Ordinance 644. He knew the intent of the city was to include his property.
Rather than deal with a Communist-like rule, he evicted his tenant and plans to sell the house.
I planned to write an article regarding this City of Lakewood goof and may still do so.
We should keep track of the City goofs on the R.I.P. #1. $200,000 cost overrun, so far. #2. R.I.P. letters sent to people who do not own rental property, but instead own and occupy their homes. #3. City fails to send R.I.P. letters to people who own rentals. 4. A language problem in city document that eliminates single-family rental properties from the R.I.P. requirement. 5. The City published two drop-dead dates for registering for the R.I.P.
If the city can make these mistakes then maybe, just maybe, it will be determined that the city has made the mistake of violating citizens Fourth Amendment rights.
A question for the City of Lakewood is, “How many mistakes will it take for Council to conclude that the entire R.I.P. is a mistake?”
The City should identify which City staff member is responsible for these mistakes and then an early retirement or termination should follow.
Robert,
As hard as it is to believe, Lakewood published two different dates. Another incompetent goof. I guess property owners should get to pick a date without penalty.
JohnA, I cannot add to your words. You are so on target. Lakewood City Council members are very intelligent. I wonder why they are so blind to doing what is right?
Joseph Boyle
WOT