Fire Progressions: Rental Inspections Rise from the Ashes

[XLFD]

The Ludington City Council is poised to pass a rental inspection ordinance this Monday, October 26, 2015.  The highly unpopular proposed legislation has been roundly panned as to its substance and to its necessity.  The city has failed to show any kind of specific complaints against any specific properties, wishing instead to inundate us with unsubstantiated anecdotes from the public officials as to why this is needed. 

It should be admitted that some renters live in squalid conditions.  It should also be admitted that in Ludington there is no evidence whatever that the squalor is landlord-imposed or contrary to the conditions the tenant is comfortable with.  The tenant signs a contract with the landlord for a residence where both private (insurance) and government agencies (Health Department, MSHDA, et. al.) already have the ability to come in and address issues of safety.  Like anybody buying a house, a prospective renter can hire a house inspector if they want to.

It should even be admitted that many homeowners live in substandard conditions, where their homes definitely need some tender loving care.  Many of these are in the process of purchasing their house via a mortgage or land contract, and so they are effectively renting/leasing their home from a bank or the deed-holder.  These folks are exempt from 'rental inspection' ordinances all over primarily because tenants and these quasi-tenants make up 80% of the voters, and would not be tolerated.

The rental inspection scheme is being borrowed from other municipalities with the Ludington city elite looking at the extra revenue generated being used to employ more city workers and make the city more attractive to state and federal grants that reward cities for encroaching the rights of their citizenry. 

Yet, people do not generally like their rights being taken away, so the clever bureaucrat hides this by subterfuge, using arguments for safety, moving the objective behind convenient bugbears, and converting tragedies into opportunities.

This article will focus on the opportunity glommed onto by our Ludington officials in selling a flawed rental inspection ordinance, that will not accomplish any of its stated objectives, and yet accomplish several overt ones.  It will do this by looking at the city's use of a historic fire, looking at other city fires, and compare this with another historical fire

LUDINGTON'S HISTORIC FIRES

Failing to evoke much empathy from the local people and press for the vague anecdotes stated by Councilors Krauch, Winczewski, Holman, and Tykoski regarding what they established as poor and unsafe living condition, they borrowed their appointed friends from the Planning Commission to create a more substantive case for this specious ordinance.  Joe Moloney followed a parade of citizens to show there was at least a little public support from city employees at the Special August 13 meeting. 

He would later make a case invoking his kids safety and how great the ordinance was in moving the city ahead, at a meeting where his fellow PC member spoke.  Raymond Madsen spoke about his recent rental purchase and what he encountered and heard from the previous tenants.  I went over to his 'rental' property this last week and found that his yard looks as if it hasn't been mowed since he brought it, and the house is an eyesore, missing several of its old tiles on the outside and the exterior door on its side. 

Great job of property maintenance so far, Raymond; you may be able to fix it up since it seems like you moved the tenants out and contributed more to the actual problem that Ludington faces, a rental unit shortage.

But Ray's contribution to the discussion was his recantation of Ludington's worst fire.  Raymond Madsen highlighted the James Street Fire in a letter to the editor which implied that the 1993 tragedy could have been avoided if the city had adopted a rental inspection program in 1991.  Both happened more than twenty years before Madsen decided to live here, but looking at the particulars, one wonders:  If it was a faulty electrical ceiling fixture that caused the fire, how would a 'cursory' rental inspection by a non-electrician have determined that? 

Implications abound in his letter, and in subsequent mention of the fire by the council, that the fire was caused because of some inherent dangerous nature of rental properties somehow preying on the lives of the tenants who contract to live there.  But let's take a look at fires in the USA in general.

According to the code-making National Fire Protection Association (NFPA):  "Seventy percent of reported home fires and 84% of the home fire deaths occurred in one- or two-family homes, including manufactured homes. The remainder occurred in apartments or other multi-family housing."  When you compare the residential home deaths per year over the period between 2006-2013, the average is around 2500, for tenants in apartments, the number is down at the 400 level.  Rental properties could be easily said to be safer, due not only to these stats, but because the landlord and the tenant both have vested interests in keeping it safe. 

Locally, one of the first fires I was a part of as a Ludington firefighter in 2001 was a fatal fire in a residential house on North Robert Street.  The cause at the time was determined to be by fire accelerants used by the woman who perished.  The only other fatal fires in Ludington beyond these I could find with a variety of Google searches were the following:

2003 Fatal Boat Fire likely caused by an inebriated boater, smoking or otherwise lighting a candle.

2012 Fatal Fire on Robert St. where no cause was determined, careless smoking being the main culprit.

2013 George St fire death likely caused by cigarettes smoked by an inebriated fellow.

If we consider that a marina is a rented slip, the three all occurred on a rental property.  However, we note that there is a fair chance that all were started by careless smoking.  NFPA reports that few fires are actually due to a dilapidated structure spontaneously combusting by itself.  You may as well blame the gun rather than the gun-wielder for a shooting death, which is probably the frame of mind for those for such intrusive programs.

GERMANY'S HISTORIC FIRE

Students of history are well served in brushing up on what has been done in the past in order for tyrants to gain more power.  In 1933, a fire at Berlin's parliament building signaled the demise of the German republic and the rise of Nazi Germany. 

Less than a month before the Reichstag caught fire, a young Adolph Hitler had been appointed as chancellor by German President Paul von Hindenburg.  Hitler advised the president to dissolve the Reichstag and call for a new election, in order that Hitler's burgeoning Nazi party could gather more seats and he would be more able to pass legislation that would establish more power for himself, including the Enabling Act. The Enabling Act was a special law which gave the Chancellor the power to pass laws by decree, without the involvement of the Reichstag. 

During the election campaign, the Nazis alleged that Germany was on the verge of a Communist revolution and that the only way to stop the Communists was to pass the Enabling Act. The message of the campaign was simple: increase the number of Nazi seats so that the Enabling Act could be passed.

A week before the election, the Reichstag suffered major damage from a fire of suspicious origin.  Five communist revolutionaries were charged with the crime, thousands more communists were rounded up, and Hitler with his propagandists were able to use this to eventually get a very favorable result at the election.  There are some fair arguments to suggest the fire was a false flag action that Hitler staged.  The day after the fire Hitler asked for and received from President Hindenburg the Reichstag Fire Decree, signed into law by Hindenburg using Article 48 of the Weimar Constitution.

The Reichstag Fire Decree suspended most civil liberties in Germany (including ones that mimic our First and Fourth Amendments) and was used by the Nazis to ban publications not considered "friendly" to the Nazi cause.  With their allies, the Nazi's had over 50% of the seats of the Reichstag, which had to move from their building.  Within a month, the Enabling Act was passed, due in large part to the Nazis' ability to capitalize on national security concerns.

THE CONNECTION

Tyrants and would-be-tyrants always have the fear card in their hand.  They benevolently play themselves as caring for your security and safety, just before they take your inalienable rights away so as to make the world less dangerous.  Ben Franklin famously said:  "He who sacrifices freedom for security deserves neither.", as one who strove for liberties. 

On the other side, Rahm Emmanuel famously said:  " You never let a serious crisis go to waste. And what I mean by that it's an opportunity to do things you think you could not do before.", as one who strove to improve governmental power. 

What we need to consider is why the city council and their planning commission allies need to dredge up this tragic fire from Ludington history in order to justify a poorly conceived and poorly written ordinance.  Had there been significant fault of the landlord in this tragedy or in any other fire or life safety incident since, we would have heard of it by now.  But even without any proofs, our landlords and even our tenants are painted with the same brush as Hitler's communist threat was.

But there is no incident that fits the template, and they're not likely to commit arson with their own city hall.  So they will pass this rental inspection ordinance under false pretenses, false assumptions, and, to complete the trifecta, a falsely stated objective. 

Chancellor Hitler would be proud of their coming accomplishments for the people of Ludington, whose civil rights have gotten in the way of their security.  We must succeed in putting the legislative fires out, and getting the fire starters out where they can do no further harm.

[Willy]

Well stated X. As was discussed in a previous topic, the tragic fire where all of those kids died, was not caused by the lack of an inspection ordinance. There are a lot of snakes hidden under this RIP ordinance rock which shows us just how low this Council will sink in order to further their agenda  of limiting the rights of Ludingtons citizens.

PS. That photo of Germany's central building was actually taken after it's last siege at the end of WW2.

[XLFD]

Thanks, Willy, and I daresay that the city's recent actions are indicative of a hidden agenda towards an unrealistic objective.  We may hear some of those snakes talking out of their asp-holes later tonight.

As for your P.S., give yourself a gold star for recognizing the time of when the photo was taken.  I was aware that the picture of the Reichstag provided was actually taken a dozen years after the actual fire, semi-subliminally showing that the burnt-out Reichstag, which was in plain view of the new parliament building across the street during this time, was a constant reminder to the representatives and the people of what happened 'due to the German communist party and their sympathizers'-- and eventually, of what could happen to people that went against the Third Reich. 

Showing that fires can have lasting effects on the public psyche and public policy, as the James Street Fire has proven in Ludington.

[dowland]

Wow, could one imagine if the daily rag actually done real reporting like the torch does instead of being a mouth piece for are corrupt local government.

[XLFD]

Reprinting Associated Press articles and official news releases verbatim limits their journalistic talents after a time.  If that doesn't, having controversial news stories rejected by city/county cronies posing as editors will.  Here we decorate things with the ugly truth backed by unsightly amounts of data.  It's not attractive for many when you have been inundated with the pretty lies and beautiful vapidity of the COLDNews.

We also encourage frank and honest discussion by all, even when others would not.  That can get ugly too, as we have seen here at times.

[AQUAMAN]

Look closely at whom are employed at the LDN COLDNEWS, and where the operation is headquartered. It's not locals at all anymore like years ago, and most aren't even from Michigan. They are nothing less than "out-landers" that are lazy and incompetent at their profession, hate the LDN, hate Ludington, and want it shaped it their own crony agenda, on the same page with like-types that run the City of Ludington. Think I'm paranoid or exaggerating. Swell, then get off your butt and go down and ask them for yourselves. No, I'm not talking about the people in the main office, nor the mfg. part that actually print and do the real work. I'm talking about that fake editor, the fake reporters, and the fake general managers that actually RUN what we see printed, the lax and lazy out-landers. 

[XLFD]

Beware of the person who says they love Ludington, and then does whatever it takes to work against the regular citizens of this town.  Over 100 signatures from Sherman Oaks tenants, brilliant heartfelt speeches from plenty of tenants, landlords and more about the deleterious effects of the rental inspection ordinance, and still five city councilors voted for it. 

Remember these names:  Castonia, Tykoski, Rathsack, Winczewski, and Krauch.  They would knowingly institute a new tax on a segment of our population without approval of the electorate, they would knowingly vote to allow government agencies to enter your home without warrants under fear of fine and incarceration, and knowingly go against the will of their constituents.  The record holds: no Ludington resident, landlord, tenant or, other have come out publicly for this ordinance-- except for city officials.  Time to get better representatives?!

[stump]

it would seem that they would do the right thing and vote for the peoples wishes in their ward, but no vote for something that nobody wants. Now we need some landlords to run for office.

[AQUAMAN]

I have also attended many CC mtgs. in the past, and have always been told that my one voice, or even three to four voices, will NOT weigh in any decision that the council makes. Holman herself said bring in 5,000 people, and we'll listen to them. (Maybe 50 Kaye)? Where will they sit/stand? Great councilor at large making that crappy condescending statement. However, there have been many many citizens voicing opposition, and yet their cry's and comments have been ignored! Now we even have over 100 petition names from tenants, and still a deaf ear? Manistee elects city councilors every TWO YEARS, NOT SIX YEARS! Ludington did likewise in the distant past. The reasoning is clear, it keeps this kind of crony crap from happening. It keeps fresh faces and blood in the council, NOT LIKE NOW! Why would any council member that isn't even elected, but appointed, be so condescending and arrogant to the public? Because they figure by the time their term expires, you will have forgotten their past transgressions, or will run unopposed again and reelect the bums. Waiting six long years to oust these people is insane, it's time for recalls imho. Let's find the petitions for recalls, and start getting signatures, before they turn the entire city charter upside down, and increase taxes beyond belief, as is already the case. 

[XLFD]

If the city wants to change the charter so badly, why not make two year terms be the new rule, three terms still be the maximum.  Being that the City is on the even number election years now anyways, it would allow more frequent re-evaluations of our officials without any significant extra election costs, and not give these officials a lot of extra time between elections to do their dirty work, because they always will come up for re-election every even year. 

For those of you planning on circulating recall petitions, take note; you can kill two birds with one stone by getting an initiative started for such a charter change.

[stump]

As Holman voted against the ordinance , I guess she shouldn't be on the recall list. Dam!

[AQUAMAN]

The ONLY time Holman doesn't vote with the rest of the sheeple on the council, is when it might hurt her own senior citizen customers, her own pocketbook of unethical income, or it's subject is posting signage downtown. She's on the list too, recall, recall, recall! If you run against her though, the gestapo will take down your election signs, threaten you, and she will make a large effort to bring you up to ridicule and scorn, in public, every chance she gets. Dirty politics is her middle name. 

[XLFD]

Holman's vote surprised me; I figured the council would do a round robin meeting and figure out three people to vote against it for political expediency. 

Johnson's vote against didn't surprise me, there are some politically active landlords and tenants in his ward.

Tykoski's yes vote surprised me, Sherman Oaks is in his ward and others, it could have been political suicide.

Rathsack, like Tykoski, has his term ending in 2016 and has a fair number of landlord/tenants in his ward, so he was my other guess as to a no vote. 

It should be noted that Holman is the only tenant on the city council and also doesn't have to worry about reelection.  I guess she thinks it would have made things awkward around Sherman Oaks if she voted yes.  Still it is abnormal for her to be silent when she votes-- I don't think her heart was in it.