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.

[dowland]

Tykoskis yes vote was a sure thing , since X has said from the beginning its all about power and grant money. They even trotted Heather babe out to plead here case. They lied to us and said it was for the safety of all the little people. How could he even vote with such a conflict of interest. They both were telling everyone before, you have to be for this ,because of the grant money.  They are the young version of the Clinton's.

[AQUAMAN]

Very well said dowland, great observations and points. I consider Castonia and Tykoski bookends, they always motion and second motions together, and always vote alike. I guess Castonia is Tye's mentor in this regard. Yeah, when things get sticky, trot out Heather, she can bat her fake eyelashes, wiggle, and lie like hell. All those lies are beginning to wrinkle her face up and create big dark sags under the eyes, won't be long before a facelift, just like Hillary, lol. 

[dowland]

I just talked to one of the firefighters who was the second man in the house , he was in the picture that X has posted. He said he was in the hallway and there was a smoke detector that he pulled apart and there was no battery in it. I have renters taking batteries out so they could smoke, also had one guy try to pawn his at the pawn shop. The pawn owner knew he rented from me and called me. SO this will make us feel safer, big government inspection WILL not stop any of this. They have lied to us and we better not give Shay a 5 year contract to get more power from the people. Kathy already hinted she wants personal homes inspected next. Chairman Mao would have be so proud of her.

[AQUAMAN]

Thanks for the cogent update dowland. This sounds about right too, a lot of people with no information, or misinformation, dragging around these lies, when the truth is so opposite. Yes, Kathy is starting to look very socialistic, bordering on marxist and not what she was once. Too bad, I had hoped for better, went to LHS with her, but, that was over 40 years ago, lots of changing. Recall her too imho. 

[XLFD]

I know that firefighter/lieutenant well, dowland, he's an awfully smart guy, and I have the highest respect for him.  The city as you probably know, enacted a special law for landlords to check and document their smoke detectors twice a year after the James Street fire.  That isn't a bad idea, but if they do take them out after you put them in, what do you do?

Incrementalism is the name of the game, guys.  You will be part of their planned communities, but you must allow yourself, your individuality, to quit hindering the process. 

First they invaded the homes of the renters, but I was not a renter, and I did not speak up.  Then they invaded the homes of the land contractors but I was not in a land contract and did not speak up.  Then they invaded the homes of those with unpaid mortgages, but I did not have an active mortgage, and did not speak up.  Then they invaded my home that I owned free and clear, and there was no one else to speak for me.

Fornicate that nonsense!  I will kick and scream at each juncture.  Your fellow citizens' inalienable rights should be held as precious as your rights.

[AQUAMAN]

There is another way around that smoke alarm conflict, but it's more expensive. They can be hard wired into the electrical box too. As long as the renter can't get into the breaker box to turn them off, they are going to work no matter. As for the mute responses from most renters around town, it's too bad. Most are probably afraid of some COL retaliation via LPD or other agencies. The people still need to come forward and speak their peace, or just what X says will surely happen, they later will be enabled to come for all of us. 

[dowland]

In some committees it is coed to hard wire smoke alarms. What ever happen to personal responsibility.  Whats next will they come in to make sure they have enough toilet paper. I am not against smoke alarms , saves life . Do I need the city to come in for $65.00 a pop to make sure I have them. HELL no. If your are so stupid not to have them then you will be sued if something happens. Maybe they should also check used cars to , because some people might buy one  with bad tires or brakes. 

[Willy]

Very good points all. Another problem is record keeping. If a dwelling is cited for code violations that are tenant caused there will be no indication as to who caused the problem. The landlord of course is cited for any code violations, not the tenant, no matter who caused them. I've seen many tenants who have tried to game the system by having their dwelling unit tagged so the can receive more handouts from the Government and so they can use the violation letter in court against the landlord if they are in the process of being evicted. This happens all the time in larger cities with rental inspections.

[Barry R. Schrader]

Now that the city commission has passed the renters tax and invasion (They call it the inspection for my safety bill) bill I have to let some stranger enter my house and inspect any area he chooses. If I do not allow that stranger into my rental unit I will be given a ticket for the civil infraction of saying no to the city commissions command that I let them wander around my rental unit as they please with whom ever they choose. As I stand before the judge I have to ask him if he is saying that it is legal for the city commission to choose an inspector who passes the back ground check, but has a best friend who (Unknown to him or anyone else) is the new Ludington “cat burglar”. That “cat burglar” cannot seem to be caught because he seems to know just where to go in the house being robbed, knows where the things to be robbed are and gets out of the house so fast no one sees him. This inspector has breakfast with his friend every morning. On top of that his cousin is (Again unknown to anyone) a pedophile who has been assaulting children in the area and cannot be caught either. He seems to know that the children's bedrooms are down stairs and not next to the parents bedrooms. He also knows what window to get into (Unlocked) and that his choice is the windows that are in the back and somewhat hidden from view. How could he know all that and not ever be seen scouting these homes? If the judge says I have to allow that then I must and on top of all that I have to “pay” to allow the city do this to me by the increase in my rent.

Are we going to quit and let them have their way? Some of the things that are in the works.

1. Recall petitions starting with Kathy Winczewski who wants the city of Ludington to be a gated community there by locking out the retired and the poor workers who are not paid enough to live in Ludington even though they work there.

2. A continuation of recall petitions until this bill is recalled and dumped by the newly elected commissioners.

3. A recall petition for Kaye Holman commissioner at large so that XLFD can run for her position and allow us to have a person in office that cares about the common man/woman and not how much power he can acquire.

4. That in spite of the commissioners thinking that we are too stupid to see that the only “NO” votes were from commissioners who hold the offices that XLFD could run for thereby stopping him from making more trouble for them. It is trouble for them and a great help for us to know just what they plan to do next.

5. There is a law suit in the planning stage being brought by the landlords against the city. That could cost the poor people of the city who would have blocked this (Safety) bill if they would have known that the city planned to inspect their homes also.

6. There will be an inspection of each court case where a family is removed from their rental unit because they cannot pay the increase in rent caused by city commission's insensitive decision. The results will (If allowed) be published in the Ludington Daily News and the Mason County Press “letter to the editor”and the total number of people kicked out on the street each month will be given until the people of Ludington realize how many people are out there because of this insensitive bill.

[Barry R. Schrader]

And one of the most common mistakes in a recall is the improper recall petition.  Someone needs to get us a valid petition form that is legal before we start.  Just a thought.

[dowland]

What about Mike Krauch? who was never elected from the people and from the beginning he said that the R.I.P would be implemented.   Lets not forget  the Tykoski's , she was put out at the last meeting to push grants , which we have been told has no effect on why they have been pushing this. She doesn't have a job if she doesn't get grants.  (They lied) How in the hell does here husband vote for this and not abstain? They are the new power couple.  Clinton's 2. Kay can't stand Krauch , so I say leave her on to battle him. The other board member call him little Napoleon. Kay and Les are the only ones not to vote for him to be appointed to the council.

[Barry R. Schrader]

If I had my way they would all go.  Being real I just want the rental agreement rescinded.