August 31, 2015 Buildings Committee on Rental Inspections: Why Isn't My Friend Competent to Know It's Safe?

[XLFD]

A continuing theme has occurred at the meetings where the proposed Ludington rental inspection program has been discussed:  a public comment where questions are asked and good people (landlords, tenant, others) offer reasons why the program is flawed, redundant, or just violates laws of society and decency. 

This has been followed with the officials offering unsupported anecdotes, and simplistic easily refuted arguments on how this is needed for the public safety, why it won't raise rents, and why it will be better for all.  Concessions have been made on price of registration and inspection, without any rationale of why this wouldn't make the program costly for the rest of the community, who would have to subsidize the program. 

But this meeting that lasted just over 90 minutes would feature over an hour-long discussion among those officials present as to the minutia of what they would be looking into in the ordinance.  The meeting was held at the city council chambers, with the committee's members sitting around a U-shaped arrangement of tables opening towards chairs arranged for the public.  Starting at the top of the 'U' was Richard Wilson, a city attorney receiving over $200 per hour for attendance, faux Councilor Mike Krauch, City Manager John Shay, Councilor Richard Rathsack, Councilor (Chairman)Kathy Winczewski, Asst. City Manager Jackie Steckel, City Assessor Carol Ann Foote (who arrived late), and Building Inspector Tom Fulker at the opposite corner.  Fire Chief Jerry Funk sat at his usual post along the back wall.

Of the ten people present seven of them spoke, though the ones who didn't, which included myself, had already made points made at previous full council meetings-- this was just an 'advisory' meeting of the Buildings & Licenses Committee.  I was there effectively serving as a security guard:  to observe and report.

Public Comment:

Steve Vonpfahl, a homeowner in Ludington, started off by asking whether the city had a full list of what exactly they are looking at on inspections, before giving a respectfully-given negative review of the program.  It was a good question, but never one that was directly answered later on in the hour plus of discussion.  Of course, as per city policy, his questions and others were not responded to in the public comment period. 

Lori Dickenson, a homeowner in Ludington, talked of the destabilizing effect on the market that this program will have.  Already according to Lori, buyers are holding off purchasing properties in Ludington because of the proposal. 

Deb Mannikko, Ludington landlady/homeowner expressed her concern that local tenants being misled by the city saying that the cost of the program is under $3, when the effect will be much greater.  She related a long-term tenant coming to her worried that the rent would go up a couple of dollars, and speculated she would be affected quite a bit more.

Barry Schrader, Ludington tenant, stressed the program's potential impact on tenants, the inflationary impact on rents, and how it would lead to many having to move or live in tents.

Vicki Marie, a homeowner just outside the city limits, had the most fresh and poignant comment of the night, because it was so simple yet profound at once.  She said she owned her house but her friend was a tenant living a few blocks away, who would have her home inspected to see whether it was livable. 

She asked:  "Why isn't my friend considered competent to know whether it's safe?"   The mute officials just blankly stared, not affording her an answer, so she repeated herself-- not knowing the city's commitment towards not being responsive to anybody outside their official circle.

Nancy Mustaikis, Ludington landlady/homeowner, asked the committee whether there was truth to the rumor that the displaced tenants would be redirected to living into new apartments created by developers.  This rumor is somewhat supported by the admission by Joe Moloney that the City is looking for NEZ grants which encourage redevelopment of distressed pockets of a community to create new residences.  The record shows he also was noting these grants one of the last time rental inspections were being considered in 2006.

John Shay later dismissed this rumor during the meeting, saying there was no developer waiting in the wings for this to go through, but consider the source and the wording he used.

Marcia Bonnville, a homeowner in Ludington, asked the city to table the issue for later like they did with the proposed dog beach, she and other citizens were open to discuss the issue over the winter and consider less heavy-handed mandates. 

The Committee Deliberates

Touting their accomplishments of reducing fees and holding forums on the program, Chairman Winczewski touted the city's effort to make this into a responsive program, while effectively ignoring that the public continues in astonishing numbers to pan and question it at all opportunities.  Note a majority of the speakers at this basically meaningless committee meeting (71%) were not landlords of Ludington, so the resistance is a lot more than just self-interested lessors.

The city began by making a revision to the program by saying that if a tenant initiates an inspection after the unit has been previously found in compliance, they must pay for the inspection.  Even this amendment fails to take into account whether the reason for the past inspection failure (or the reason they request one) was due to the tenant's actions or inactions.  As noted at the last council meetings public comment, complaints like this generally only come when the tenant is being evicted or behind on rent. 

John Shay gave a report on his findings on research of other Michigan cities that have rental inspections.  His list included nine:  Coldwater, Hart, Midland, Alma, Jackson, Ann Arbor, Sturgis, Otsego, and Newaygo.  Eight of the cities inspect all units, some reward those units that passed a previous inspection by extending the period between re-inspections. 

I found no reference at the Hart website for rental inspections, however, the others seem to have the program.  Most notable of the ones he mentions is Jackson, a city whose residents have fought back via the courts to reign in an oppressive program.  As of the beginning of this year, there are three lawsuits pending against the city in regards to the rental inspection program: 

T & M Associates v City of Jackson, Case No. 14-2210-CZ is challenging advance billings by the City for inspection fees, months before an actual inspection takes place. It also challenges the right of the City to inspect a vacant house that is listed for sale with a realtor and thus no longer being used by the owner as a rental property. It also challenges the renewal registration fees when a house was previously registered and the registration fees paid at the time of the initial registration.

Then there is  Tulloch v City of Jackson, Case No. 14-003295-CZ and Eyde v. City of Jackson, which is explained in the article covering the reasonableness of the fees, and whether the fees are hidden taxes, which would require a vote by the electors of Jackson to be implemented.

All of these issues and more could come out in any lawsuit started against Ludington for its program, but Shay did not talk of Jackson's legal problems or either of the other city's problems, just told us how they run their ordinances, because Shay knows how we always love to emulate dysfunctional towns in southern Michigan.

Then came the bulk of roundtable U-table discussions with the building inspector chipping in.  Here's where I got confused.  Our county Building Inspector at times seemed to contradict himself and the written program when explaining what may be acceptable and what's not; describing what may make an inspection fail and what violations wouldn't.  Attorney Wilson was to write into the program that the inspector had some latitude and discretion in the inspections, but such revision only scared me further, since it takes some of the objectivity away and gives subjective control over to the inspector, who was definitely unsure as to the specific items the city wanted him to look for, particularly since "Existing Building" codes went counter to what the city's areas of enforcements were. 

For instance, the existence of knob and tube wiring in a very old house would pass using his words and rationale, even though the lack of a grounding conductor would make them less safe than modern wiring.  The hard standards already written into the checklist, would thus not be applicable, even though that's what it says is needed to pass inspection.  See some of the confusion?

As the meeting progressed, the chairman and others began using the more definitive word "when" instead of "if" when referring to the passing of this program, and never, as they have never before, discussed the necessity of it.  Mr. Krauch almost seems to take it personally when any part of this ordinance is amended or weakened.

They came to a consensus of not inspecting all units of a big apartment complex at once, wishing to do a third of them each year.  BI Fulker mentioned that he would expect that only the landlord would need to be with him when he inspects units, but nobody mentioned anything about their approval for their units to be entered.  Apparently, the city thinks that their threat of heavy fine and jail time will be enough to deprive the tenants of their constitutional right to be safe and secure in their homes.  Isn't the ideals behind rental inspections based on safety and security?

In the end, it was settled that Attorney Wilson would put in clauses for the building inspector to use his discretion when applicable and to clarify that inspections would be done on all units, irrespective of past success, so as to be fair.  Socialism and communism is fair too, I hear.

[XLFD]

Shinblind,

I'm at a loss for you considering me a prophet (pun intended). 

Kathy Maclean's rather overt rental rehab fraud should serve as a guideline to what should be expected, so both you and shinblind are on the right track, I believe. 

To receive the maximal amount of grant money, any developer of the 'bowling alley block' will need to commit themselves to the State of Michigan for putting low-rent or subsidized housing in any sort of multi-unit dwelling, they can further market it to the state as a fantastic move forward for downtown Ludington development, as all those low-income folks will sink their limited funds into the downtown. 

Kathy used a couple hundred thousand of grant $$$ to redevelop the upstairs of 102 W Ludington into 4 rental units of which 3 should have been marketed and leased to low-income renters.  But that hasn't happened, she now seeks façade grants for the building less than four years later and says there is no renters there-- even when low-income renters need to be there or at east she needs to market them as such on the state's website.

They may remain vacant, they may be used by Maclean for some other purpose like time share property.  She may have even kept most of the state money and fudged the expenses as her husband and the Maclean family is deeply involved with construction projects as a frequent contractor with the state. 

According to my FOIA results, the state doesn't bother checking to see whether the conditions for these grants are being met, that is up to the local administrators, who get 25% of the pot for doing that job.  That person is local CDD Heather Tykoski who has looked the other way during her tenure for Maclean and others.

Thus the COLDNews headlines will tell us that any development will be for the good of the community, they may even tell us the units are meant to be affordable for lower-income renters.  But after it's built, look for it to be turned into something entirely different

[XLFD]

Before the meeting I overheard John Shay and Richard Wilson talking about a FOIA request someone had made.  They were speaking generally enough so I couldn't tell if it was about the only FOIA request I currently have outstanding with them, nor would I think they might discuss anything substantive about it when I was in the room.  My FOIA request had nothing in it that would necessarily require the attention of both of these well-paid leaders (it's about the parking training that beach officers receive and authorizations from the city for them to write parking tickets, rather straightforward). 

If anybody else has a FOIA request pending with the city could you send me a message.  Also a reminder for those who may wish to initiate litigation if the rental inspections go through, this is a perfect time to gather background information via FOIA from the city.

[AQUAMAN]

It IS ILLEGAL per a Wisconsin appeals court. Dummies on council aren't doing there jobs. They need to focus on the real infrastructure issues that are a very serious problem wherever you look, and get that fixed first, and foremost. Instead, they waste taxpayers time and money on chicken-shit like this RIP, and other silly ordinances and changes to a city charter that isn't broken. Thanks again for your leadership John Shyster Shay, from Detroit, for all due diligence and stupidities. 

[XLFD]

What's illegal in Wisconsin could be legal here in Michigan.  I will actually be putting up an article over the extended weekend on one such situation showing that. 

However, it isn't on rental inspections; so if you can find that link, put it out, Aq, it may be valuable to those who want to fight this. 

[AQUAMAN]

You know, I have to ask myself now at long last, how the heck did this entire fiasco get started to begin with? Did a bunch of low or middle income renters make complaints? If so, how many? Also, then where are they now? Why aren't they attending these meetings in big numbers and making their case known to the entire public, as well as the landlords? If this situation is so serious, who started this? What is Krauch's part in this RIP? Why is HE pushing the heck out of getting it passed so quickly? There is always something suspicious behind the scenes when the COL pushes some agenda or ordinance very quickly, and doesn't explain in detail the reasons for it. Spoiled fish = something is fishy and stinks! I'd like to say this thread is very interesting and informative. Great job by all posters on this subject matter. Many people are using logical thinking caps and being investigative of the issue, great job guys. Enjoyable banter and observations.

[XLFD]

Well that complaint angle was ruled out by the FOIA request noted in the-missing-ludington-landlord-boogeyman, and with the exception of one former tenant complaining of having to use space heaters while the furnace was fixed (something that a RIP would not correct, as it was a short-term inconvenience), they have remained silent over the summer. 

The profit motive is there since they originally sought $105 per unit as the break-even point, then dialed it back to $65 after the blowback at the June meeting.  Manistee has had a RIP since 2000 (back during the times where he would sit in on some Manistee CC meetings), so Richard Merlin Wilson knows how much these inspections will cost the city, even though he is on record in June as saying 40% more than what they're asking for now was the point at which the city would realize a profit and thus be forced to have a public vote on the RIP TAX. 

The power motive is there, of course and the incrementalization of that power began with the fire code expansion, tall grass and junk ordinance modifications, which set this power play up and are very related to it.  The unabashed progressives Krauch and Winky both love this angle.

But I believe the main driver is the potential 'urban renewal' they have planned and the large amount of state/federal money they might receive and make open to developers.  That was the reason stated back when they tried this eight years ago, and Joe Moloney has stated that twice in a low key manner this time around.  A potential new source of money and power for city hall, what's not to love about that?  And they get several steps closer to the social(ist) Utopia envisioned by Agenda 21 and the latest master plan for the city.

[dowland]

You nailed it Tom and if it wasn't for your site it would go as a unnoticed   power grab.

[XLFD]

That's why we're here as a community watchblog, keeping our officials in check and the people informed about the endangerment of their life, liberty and pursuit of happiness when it happens or is about to.

If you or others here notice a problem, please bring it up here.  If you are afraid to do so, need to leak something to the general public, or need help on verifying a persistent rumor, send me a message.  I will try to verify the info and get it out, and do my best to wipe any fingerprints leading the source back to you.