Free, Dumb Misinformation About Rental Inspections by Attorney Wilson

[XLFD]

The Misinformation of City Attorney Richard Wilson

Tucked in at the end of the September 28, 2015 meeting (at the 37:50 mark), City Attorney Richard Wilson makes the case that the current rental inspection proposal is not designed to rob anybody of their Fourth Amendment rights, a concern I and others have raised after reading the proposed ordinance.  He made some claims that were good to hear, but don't seem to be backed by law-- a common problem that he seems to have when he tries to clarify the record.  Here he is with a transcript of his own words, which only reference a nebulous property maintenance code that contains, supposedly, a whole lot of procedural safeguards that sadly do not exist.

September 28th 2015 Ludington City Council Meeting from Mason County District Library on Vimeo.

City Attorney Richard Wilson:  "There were a couple of people that commented on the rental inspection ordinance here tonight.  I would point out that in order to fully understand the rental inspection ordinance you also need to look at the Property Maintenance Code which contains a number of the procedural matters in terms of enforcing that code, and Mr. Rotta's point about searching the apartments, under the rental inspection ordinance as proposed and under the property maintenance code, we have to have the consent of the landlord and the tenant in order to search a tenant's premises.  If we do not get that permission we have, the only option we have is to seek what is called an administrative search warrant, which would be sought through the district court, just like any other search warrant, so that the Fourth Amendment rights of the people, both the landlords and the tenants are protected.

 

So, take a look at the property maintenance code as well that has the appeal process, the inspection process, you'll find that there's a whole lot more to the rental inspection ordinance than just the few pages of the ordinance itself, you have to dig  little deeper into the existing law than we have in Ludington, to see how inspections can be conducted on property owners who, for whatever reason, do not want to be inspected.

So, I just wanted to make sure everyone was clear that we were not violating the Fourteenth Amendment or the Fourth Amendment by proposing this proposed ordinance."

The Property Maintenance Code

In June, when the proposed ordinance was first discussed in front of a hundred concerned citizens, several landlords received the proposed ordinance draft and since that time, the city has only indicated that the fee schedule would be changed.  The ordinance in itself would remain intact, and any other change hasn't been publicly mentioned, changing any of the definitions have definitely not aired publicly.  The same basic ordinance is posted as of today at the city website.  So let's see what the draft says the "Ludington Property Maintenance Code" is:

Researching the city's website, we find that on March 27, 2000, the then City leaders adopted a code that essentially followed the International PMC

Now, if the proposed Rental Inspection Ordinance follows the International Property Maintenance Code. pdf explicitly, there is no procedure for getting administrative warrants for searches of housing units.  This is an international document used by countries that don't have their self-evident rights against warrantless searches protected from the government.  Feel free to 'search' the .pdf for any mention of warrants, you won't find any. 

So let's then look at any amendments to the ordinance made in 2000 in the city code-- this is where it really gets interesting. 

The above is a screen capture from the published Ludington City Code Article III in Chapter 6, the building regulations chapter.  This is the Ludington specific Property Maintenance Code (PMC) currently in existence, let's also note that there's not any property maintenance codes at the state level.  As you can see the International PMC used to be in effect but was effectively repealed in 2004. 

Ordinance 24-00 was repealed in 2004?  So our proposed rental inspection ordinance references a repealed law to define what the "Ludington Property Maintenance Code" is, when the Ludington PMC is entirely different due to the April 12, 2004 meeting amending of it-- by repealing it:

And as you can see in the current Ludington City Codes, the International PMC has never been replaced nor is there any mention of administrative or search warrants at all.  Legally speaking, there is no current "Ludington property maintenance code" in effect, and the definition in the Rental Inspection proposal is meaningless. 

Just Plain Wrong, Just Plain Unprofessional, Just Plain Dumb

So where does Attorney Wilson get the idea to reference a repealed ordinance to define a key term in crafting this proposed program?  Where does he get the idea that the current (and nonexistent) Ludington PMC or even the repealed International PMC contains within it language to protect the Fourth Amendment rights of individuals?   Why doesn't he note that in the proposed ordinance it clearly says that refusal to allow an inspection or re-inspection by any person will earn them a possible fine and jail term, without any wriggle room stated: 

Attorney Richard Wilson does not live in our county, he lives in Manistee, and has shown time and time again, that he has few ethical concerns in taking Ludington taxpayer money out of the county, whether he was overbilling the city for three years, unlawfully funneling money between the city and contractors for much of that same time period, or earning well over $25,000 for his law firm for taking on my initial FOIA lawsuit with the city without council approval to do so.  However you want to define what he has done, while overcharging you for it, it hasn't been lawful, professional, or ethical,by any means.

[XLFD]

Kevin Braciszewski of the City of Ludington Daily News (COLDNews) did a funny report about this meeting and the parts about rental inspections in a piece called:  Two speak out against Ludington city rental ordinance idea.  It details (just like the print edition) the comments of the two landladies that spoke out: 

"Mary Simmon spoke against a proposed rental property inspection ordinance and said the city needs more rental units and said it is not a good time to approve rental inspections.

Deb Mannikko also spoke against the proposed inspections and said the building inspector should spend more time inspecting private homes."

Anyone who looks at Deb Manikko's presentation at 13:40 into the video understands that's not what she was saying, and Cub Reporter Kevin's synopsis is patently false, likely engineered to deflate the will of the strident landlady by making her otherwise pithy argument into something to be ridiculed by the casual observer. 

Welcome to my world, Deb; this is what they've been doing to me for six years at the City's newspaper.  Perhaps you will one day get to the point, like I have, where they don't even consider you a person of note, as the article and its title suggests.  I spoke out strongly against the ordinance, had the city attorney respond to my Fourth Amendment concerns with a specious explanation, yet the COLDNews doesn't 'like' it, doesn't 'share' it, but does the 'ignore' act.  That isn't news reporting, it's propaganda.  You come to appreciate it when Kevin or his substitute Patsy Klevorn leave you out of the story, rather than misrepresent what you said, so don't lose heart, Deb.

Thank heavens for the Mason County District Library and their recordings on Ludington TV, where people can see what actually happens at these meetings and laugh at the city newsrag.

[AQUAMAN]

I truly was hoping by now at least, after all these months on the proposed RIP ordinance, that some people, or a whole gang of renters, would come forward and speak out in favor of it. This just hasn't happened. Now, I just have to wonder why? Even if they were few in number, it would show some renters are not being treated rightly. It just hasn't happened at all. So, in light of this, why is the COL and Wilson so adamant about it's passage and implementation? Got to be something wrong in all this to begin with, and not getting any less suspicious with every CC mtg. that passes. 

[XLFD]

The dirty little secret is that existing Ludington renters are, for the most part, more afraid of this ordinance than the landlords-- with good reason.  Either their rent will go up or they will lose their home.  All of these people freely signed an agreement with their current landlord to live where they're at with conditions agreed to by both.  The record shows that they have not made any complaints to the city, the record is absent of any current condition existing in Ludington that needs this as a remedy.

Absent any of that, this program has zero regulatory value, and as has been debated before, is a tax on landlords, of whom the city already hits hard for property taxes.  Rents have already been pushed up because  many of the smaller rental properties are being sold as single family dwellings, unlikely to return as rentals, all for fear of the likely passage of this crazed ordinance.  The demand for rentals goes up as these renters get displaced, supply goes down, and thus prices raise.  Simple economics that is explained at almost every meeting to the council by concerned landlords, tenants, and citizens like myself. 

But all the council seems to give us is uncorroborated anecdotes by Krauch, Winczewski and Tykoski about being in houses where they noticed it was not up to standards.  See people, this is what happens when you let city councilors into your homes!  LOL.

[Willy]

Terrific work X. There are to many people who do not realize what is going on here. Maybe even some of the Councilors. Again I have to wonder what the Councilors are thinking and what have they been told that would make them consider passing this ordinance. How can anyone sit there week after week and ignore what is being said to them by X and others who have spoken out against this ordinance. Communicating with the Council is like slapping a drunk to try and wake them up. Even drunks eventually sober up but the Council never seems to be able to get a handle on what they are doing. I can tell that this rental ordinance was taken from another City and adapted to Ludington. There are some things that, in my opinion, should be changed.

For instance [Sec. 6-18 Inspections by building inspector prior to permit issuance] is granting to much power to the building inspector. The words "Building inspector" should be replaced with "City" or " Building Dept." or "City Manager" or whoever the building inspector works for. Also It's not a "permit" that is issued it's a "certificate of compliance".

Sec 6-182 Additional inspections, is just a "cover our ass_es" for the City because they know they are allowing an individual who is not qualified to perform these inspections. This will cost landlords big bucks. This code sec. gives the City the option to not only not have an inspector inspect the units and to allow someone other than the inspector do it for them but to also pass on the liability of missing a code violation to a private contractor. This code section also gives the City the right to use private contractors to do inspections instead of the Building Inspector.

 

[XLFD]

Thanks Willy, the word does need to get out. 

If this does pass, and it does not summarily get repealed when a new crop of landlord-tenant councilors comes in after the election of 2016, the friendly face and mien of Tom the building inspector will be replaced in a short time with Manistee's current inspector company, the Spicer Group.  Rates will go up, the rules will be taken more literally, rental unit availability will continue to go down. 

If you want to know how rental inspections will affect Ludington, look at the nearby Petri dish called Manistee home to an oppressive RIP since 2000.  I'm hoping to go up there and take a look around soon, and ask my friends from Real Manistee to guide me through the data, good or bad.  All of the anecdotal evidence so far points one way.

[AQUAMAN]

This current Ludington City Council seems to be on a bandwagon for many unneeded changes on a regular and continuing basis. New silly ordinances, changes to our city charter, modifying the city manager's contract, and many more like this RIP. Why? Surely they have enough on their plates with infrastructure being at an alarming all time decaying condition. That is a very serious matter in itself, and isn't going away because they keep dodging the duties of fixing it. This infrastructure, imho, is of utmost importance, and imho, also the core duty of the city council members to keep in good up-to-date condition. They have failed in this regard miserably, and openly admit it. If they can't do what they were primarily elected for, then they all should find new pursuits, away from serious responsibilities that the job entails. Let new blood run for office, and see to it these issues are attended to asap. It's only fair and right that this happen. I am hoping more local based people in city wards come forward and put these cronies back out of their seats at the next election.