Tacoma Housing Authority (THA) rental inspection criteria are not good enough for the City of Lakewood.
If you thought a THA inspection would satisfy Lakewood’s Rental Housing Safety Program (RHSP) standards and exempt your property from yet additional inspections, not to mention fees and potentially substantial bring-up-to-code costs, you thought wrong.
In a recent exchange of emails between a Lakewood landlord and the City of Lakewood, despite verbiage on the latter’s website exempting rentals that (a) receive government funding; and (b) are inspected at least every three years; and (c) a copy of those inspections provided the City of Lakewood – satisfying those three stipulations are not sufficient.
Three out of four will win you most contests, but failing the rather arbitrary judgement of the fourth criteria can do you in: (d) “The inspection is substantially equivalent to the inspection required by RHSP (determined by the Director).”
Citing an example, “the Director” wrote that THA does not include exhaust duct location. Lakewood’s RHSP does.
Is “specific house number size” in the THA? No. Is it in Lakewood’s RHSP? Yes.
Window glazing criteria? No, in the THA. Yes – of course – in the RHSP.
Minimum room height and width? No, THA. Yes, RHSP.
There’s more, much more listed by the City’s spokesperson but these are “some of the major differences, not all of the differences, but they are some of the larger issues that an HQS inspection does not cover.”
These, and the others, are evidently all substantial enough however to require Lakewood’s inspection over, above, and despite the inspection administered by a government different than Lakewood’s.
Which is possibly the latitude – changing the rules of the game – City Attorney Heidi Wachter had in mind when at the July 5, 2016 Public Hearing on the RHSP she said, “By using a broad grant of authority instead of a very specific detailed authorization, the ordinance gives the city the ability to tailor the program as we do the inspections.”
Somehow, “exhaust duct location” and the “intolerable conditions” – also described as “scary” – per councilmember’s descriptions of why the RHSP was necessary, fail not only to be related, but serve to rather frustrate reason.
Perhaps this is why the State of Washington Landlord Tenant Act – which covers, in great detail, every nook and cranny of every corner of the rental issue, safety included, encapsulating every possible question a landlord or tenant might have – was, like the Tacoma Housing Authority’s criteria, overlaid instead by Lakewood’s own version.
Said Lakewood: “The HQS inspection (THA) focuses primarily upon making sure the systems in place are safe, decent and sanitary while the RHSP inspection looks to ensure the systems in place meet specific codes in place at the time and meet very specific requirements.”
Though billed as a safety program, Lakewood’s inspections now rather very much appear as a ‘bait-and-switch’ code enforcement program affecting nearly 15,000 rentals in in the city.
Perhaps this is what the RHSP was about all along, less a safety issue as a code issue.
Mr. Anderson, in previous writings you stated that you were moving forward with a citizens’ referendum regarding this program. What gives with that?
A brief review of the referendum applicability of Ordinance No.644:
Initially I directed my question to the Municipal Research Services Center (why go to all the work of gathering 6,000 signatures, plus the cost of attorney review if Ordinance No. 644 is not susceptible to referendum?) but since I am not an elected official they would not answer my question.
In MRSC’s reply they wrote: “Thank you for your inquiry. MRSC is a private, nonprofit research and information service for towns, cities, and counties in the state of Washington. We are only able to provide our services to local government officials and employees. From the information you provided, I cannot tell if you are eligible for MRSC services. Can you please clarify if you are local government official or employee?’
I’m none of those so, on October 17, 2016 each of the Lakewood City Council was polled individually as to whether they, as elected representatives, would in fact represent what would appear to be a sizeable segment of the population who oppose the rental inspection program by inquiring of the Municipal Research Services Center (MRSC) as to the susceptibility of RIP to referendum.
Four did not respond; one offered to provide a list of attorneys; one said they would but then did not, there having been nothing further; and one even said rather emphatically “No” and sent their expanded opinion as to why to the rest of the council.
I then solicited the help of a Clover Park School Board member – elected – and he likewise was denied his request of MRSC on my behalf.
MRSC wrote the elected school board member: “Working for a city or town would qualify for our research services – unfortunately MRSC is not able to provide service to school board members, only those that work directly from a city/town.”
Ironically MRSC then had the audacity, in my opinion, to send a satisfaction survey to that elected school board member hoping that his favorable response would enhance their standing with the state legislature which funds MRSC to the tune of $3 million annually.
Finally, Christine Kilduff, 28th District Legislative representative, was able to persuade MRSC to respond. The MRSC spokesperson wrote on November 15, 2017:
“I have looked at Ordinance No. 644. It is an ordinance which, by its title, is designed to ‘create a residential housing safety program.’ Its introductory ‘Whereas’ clauses indicate that ‘some rental housing units with substandard conditions exist within the City of Lakewood; and ‘improving residential housing and providing for neighborhood stability throughout the City requires periodic inspection of rental housing units in the City to determine if such premises endanger or impair the health, safety or welfare of a tenant or affect neighborhood stability.’ Lakewood is a code city and is subject to the initiative and referendum provisions of RCW 35A.11.080-100. RCW 35A.11.080 provides in part that certain ordinances are not subject to initiative and referendum, including:
“(2) Ordinances necessary for immediate preservation of public peace, health, and safety or for the support of city government and its existing public institutions which contain a statement of urgency and are passed by unanimous vote of the council;
“I believe that Ordinance No. 644 might qualify under this section except that the ordinance does not contain a statement of urgency. I don’t know whether it was passed unanimously, but that’s irrelevant since the ordinance contained no statement of urgency. That being the case, in my opinion the ordinance would be subject to the initiative and referendum process. However—and this is a big however as to the power of referendum—RCW 35A.11.090 provides that an ordinances shall not go into effect before thirty days from the time of final passage and are subject to referendum during the interim’.
“Ordinance No. 644 was enacted in 2016 and thus the referendum process is no longer available since more than 30 days has elapsed since its adoption.”
Waste of Time = WOT. In case you were unsure of the meaning. Which would be hard to do considering my responses.