Rental Inspection Meeting August 13, 2015: Questions Unanaswered, Answers Unquestioned

[XLFD]

It was good to see a healthy contingent of about 60 concerned Ludington citizens at the special meeting regarding the proposed rental inspection program (see R.I.P. updates included here).  About a third of the people present, spoke.  Almost all, applauded and sided with the speakers, who were vehemently against the R.I.P. with only one exception from the crowd.  That exception would have me get up from my seat for a second time to address. 

But here's what went down that night in a nutshell.  Landlords and other concerned parties asked questions about the R.I.P., they made reasoned comments about the costs, implementation, fairness, legality, redundancy, and a host of specific problems inherent in the R.I.P. 

Those questions and concerns lingered for a few moments after the twenty speakers spoke up and the councilors began discussions about the R.I.P.  The questions went unanswered, the concerns were drowned out by unsubstantiated anecdotes some councilors brought out that told of people living in squalor and who apparently could only be saved by someone from the government coming into their residence and declaring it uninhabitable. 

It was quite sad really.  The council had the opportunity for two months to answer simple questions put out by citizens then and re-asked at this meeting.  What is the specific rationale for starting this program in Ludington-- is there a problem with deadbeat landlords and rental properties not following code?  Why don't we hear about these specific cases if there is?  Why can't such problems that could occur be taken care of by the involved parties, where the tenant can get help from many other agencies if needed?  Why add a redundant step that will potentially cost landlords (and ultimately tenants) in fixing things up to standards previously unwanted by either owner or occupant, and often leading to the loss of a rental unit (landlord) or residence (tenant)?

Let's not forget that there is a legally binding contract created by the lease where both parties to the contract have the option not to accept it, and that the landlords are held already by many minimum standards by the existing rules, safeguards and bureaucracies, not to mention their own scruples. 

Questions Unanswered

Landlords Dale White and Jeff Wrisley started the discussion going along the lines that inspections by insurance were already performed, and questioned the need, but the audience began getting in the applause mode when Landlord Tom Tyron, walked up to the podium with a blank sheet of legal paper and asked the councilors to sign their names on it and told them he would come over to their house on a certain day between the hours of 8 AM to 5 PM to take an invasive look at each of their rooms, and let them know what they need to correct.  After reminding them that the chief of LPD would have to have probable cause and get a warrant to do what the city wants to do, he mentioned the easiest way to win against having a bad landlord is to just to move out.

Throughout the other comments we heard two people weigh in about Manistee's existing R.I.P. (created by the same legal team we have), which isn't working and has led to more blight instead of less blight as buildings with window's boarded up are more commonplace. 

Other notable speakers were Deb Manikko and Nancy Mustaikis speaking stridently against the program's cost and consequences.  Michelle Elliot, Melissa Reed, and Linda O'Brien were three other Ludington landladies who gave sober accounts of the situation, and the negative effects it would have on tenants and the amount of affordable rental units.  Where do these people go, and what can they afford when these units don't pass?

The manager for Wildwood Meadows out in PM Township was perhaps the most threatening in her implications, even though her properties won't fall under the new R.I.P.  She was perhaps either figuring it would or else believing it would soon affect her-- or maybe she was speaking just in solidarity with her fellows.  She was having their lawyers look at the program.

Mark Rodgers took a similar tact, going through a list of several lawsuits filed by citizens against existing R.I.P. that were being waged successfully against the programs and their constitutionality.  As written, this R.I.P. is very vulnerable to legal challenges, however, that's exactly what our 57 city attorneys would love, siphoning more money out of our pockets to pay them defending programs they know are faulty.

Chuck Lange, chairman of the Mason County Commissioners and Ludington landlord broadcasted a study that indicated Ludington was in great need already of low rent housing and that this would aggravate the current situation, intimating that such a program would never fly in the county.

Somewhere in the midst of all these fine speeches, I made an appearance and brought up two points, either of which should make any Ludington citizen wary of this ordinance, and reprinted below in it's entirety, because I created the transcript.  

"I want to make two points in the time allowed, I have many more. 

First, the ordinance in section 6-183 states "Any person who violates any provision of this chapter, including failure or refusal to allow an inspection or re-inspection, shall be guilty of a municipal civil infraction."  The courts have upheld since, Chapman v. United States that due to Fourth Amendment protections, the resident enjoyed privacy rights in the leased premises, and only he or she could waive that right.  If the occupant refuses to consent to the inspection, the owner cannot allow the inspection absent a clear emergency.

Which means that absent any warrant, a tenant who refuses to have his unit inspected cannot be forced to by city hall.  Nor can the landlord allow such inspections after the tenant's refusal without suffering potential civil suits from the tenant.  If the ordinance keeps such language, I would encourage all tenants to refuse these inspections, because if the city tries to enter your premises without your permission or a warrant, you will soon be able to afford your own house with your court settlement courtesy of your tyrannical local government.

Second, The Daily News after the June meeting reported:  "Shay also said the committee wants the city’s fees to pay enough to cover the inspections — so the city’s costs don’t go up — but not so much that the city would profit by the inspections."

The rationale for that statement was explained by Attorney Wilson, who said that a fee which generated positive revenue for the city would then become not a fee, but a tax.  So at that point $105 per unit was considered the break-even point.  More than that would be a tax, less than that would be a loss for the city, which they would have to pay via the general fund.

Now, we are being told that the city is offering a discount and only collecting $65 for what is the exact same service.  There are two conclusions here.

One, if the city manager was truthful in his words to us about it being revenue-neutral in June, the taxpayers will have to pay $40 per unit inspected from the general fund, and it costs the general taxpayers over $20,000 per year to support this, and they need to be apprised of that fact.

Two, if the city manager believes it is revenue neutral now as he intimated in the Daily News yesterday, then back in June he knowingly submitted an inflated figure designed to generate revenue on the backs of our landlords, at the tune of $40 per inspection. 

So with the new tweaks we either have additional expenditures from the general fund or a tax [Here's where I was halted for my three minutes, I would have finished...], even by our attorney's viewpoint, being invoked.  It depends on whether you believe John Shay now, or then."

The last person to speak in public comment was Joe Moloney.  If you recall Joe from an earlier Ludington Torch story way back in the archives, he achieved notoriety by approaching the city council as the president of a group of people who wanted a dog park on the northeast side of Cartier Park.

Now, there is nothing wrong with that, except that Joe was serving on the Planning Commission where this topic never got any discussion, though it would be putting part of the park to a new use, and hence is a city Planning topic.  As noted in the thread, he cannot ethically do that.

Since those days, Joe resigned from the Planning Commission, but then rejoined after a year or two, eager in his zeal to help LIAA give us an inspirational Master Plan very receptive to global warming and other Agenda 21 concepts designed to drastically affect property rights. 

This day he was plugging for the rental inspection program and questioning the morality of those who spoke and their desire to be part of the solution.  Through all of it, he failed to note whether he was speaking for himself, or whether he was speaking on behalf of the Planning Commission or the City of Ludington itself.  After he uttered his last words and headed to his seat, I rose and made a point of order:  to have the record note that Mr. Moloney was a member of the City Planning Commission.  The point was accepted, and muted any sort of import of Moloney's words, since he failed to register his own conflict of interest in the matter for himself.  What a great way to make points with the mayor (his appointer) and the council (his approvers), by arguing the city's points. 

To his credit, Joe did accept the fact that he should have said who he was speaking on behalf of, in a discussion with me just after the meeting. 

Answers Unquestioned

Yes, there were plenty of fine points and speeches made by those in attendance, but here in brief were the points/comments made by our city councilors after all that commentary, and brief rebuttals by this article's author:

Winczewski:  After relating a story where she went into the home of an 88 y.o. lady who had flooring that needed repair, two boarded up windows, and a door that did not fit it's frame, requiring rags to be stuck around it, she told us the R.I.P. was needed for safety of people like her.

Let's analyze:  This story wasn't even declared to be here in Ludington, nor can we determine with her background why the floor, windows and door were that way.  Considering her description, the tenant may have 'boarded' the windows up herself, as many locals do during the winter to conserve heat; for the same reason she may have stuffed rags to stop drafts around an older door whether it needed it or not. 

Long-term older tenants like she was presumed to be, may have flooring that has been well worn in because due to the displacement and other inconveniences to the tenant, most landlords replace flooring and do other major repairs when the rental unit comes open.  Perhaps she even rejected overtures from the landlord to do so.

This is the problem with anecdotes and the reported impressions of the councilor, but one thing is certain:  this older woman and any caring family and friends she had, knew of these discrepancies and apparently didn't either correct the situation themselves, or think it a big enough problem to be addressed.  The R.I.P. would cure this possible non-problem by making an 88 year old woman potentially get higher rents or lose her home, despite the factors, and probably her independence.

Krauch:  Who isn't a landlord, and who is an appointed councilor sitting in that position contrary to the city charter, related that blight is an issue in our community before doing math regarding the cost of the R.I.P., intimating that any landlord who believes this will cost landlords hundreds per month, must have some serious problems with rental property.  Krauch was definitive in his support of the R.I.P. and gave indications he was active in its preparation

Let's Analyze: Our officials and our COLDNews would like to just look at the cost of registration and inspection, divide by three and say less than $2 a month is negligible.  They neglect to count into the equation all the time the landlords need to coordinate these inspections and effort/expenses needed to make tenants try to comply with the provisions that are out of the landlord's hands. 

Krauch probably doesn't realize it but the Fourth Ward which he recently moved into, will suffer greatly from blight once the older houses there fail to pass inspections due to low ceilings, small bedrooms, and other arbitrary eccentricities which the R.I.P. has.  Does he care that many of the needier resident of the ward will have to move out of houses/apartments that cannot be brought up to compliance with the city's dicta?  Some, out into the streets of Ludington, or out of Ludington itself because they cannot afford the elevated rents coming with the rental housing shortage.

Holman:  In true Nancy Pelosi fashion, Kaye honestly said that we will never find out whether the ordinance will work or not without passing it.  Otherwise, she gave the same old false patter about her listening to everybody and likely false hopes about her voting against this.  Kaye, if you're actually listening, twenty voters in this city came before you and dropped myriads of reasons why to abandon the R.I.P., the only ones that spoke in favor of it is city officials.

Tykoski:  Mentioned he has been in rental housing as a firefighter and noticed people using space heaters because furnaces didn't work in conditions that were horrible.  Nick, furnaces fail and need maintenance at times, that's what space heaters are all about.  People have alternate options if their landlord isn't fixing it.  Space heaters in a living room are better than burning barrels in a tent city. 

Rathsack:  Indicated he was receptive to the R.I.P., but was worried about the costs being excessive if they all came at one time to a landlord with many units, and advised splitting them up for such folks.

Johnson:  Was absent, but as usual, his empty chair said nothing.

Castonia:  Showed a bit of disdain for a speaker that said that the council's mind was already made up, saying he was not solid either way, but felt that an inspection list created by the landlord and tenant at their initial agreement should be good enough if they give a copy to the city.  He earned some applause here by an audience who up to that point only heard positive or neutral responses from the councilors about the R.I.P. 

But even Castonia's idea isn't perfect.  Our city officials shouldn't be burdened with all the paperwork that would create in what is effectively none of their business if there is no problems at a rental unit.  Perhaps requiring such a checklist to be presented if any relevant code enforcement issues come up would be more appropriate.

The end decision was made to have the committee look and see whether they should exempt rentals that have already been inspected by liability insurance agencies, which are good enough in themselves as a couple of landlords noted, but likely won't appease the committee, since the R.I.P. would be dead in the water if they did, since almost all landlords would have the requisite insurance inspection which would already have told them about any problems they recognized.  Insurance companies have a financial incentive to make sure rental units are not unsafe before approving the insurance.

If you were there, please add any comments/transcripts beyond the summaries I gave above for any of the people who spoke at the meeting.  Unfortunately, the library didn't record this entertaining bit of local politics.  Weigh in on the controversy, the City wants your feedback, or so they say.

[Willy]

Good points all. You guys / gals [whatever] are showing good logic and reasoning regarding the crap the Council and Shay are trying to pass. This legislation which is supposedly "good for the City" must be critiqued but that's something City leaders aren't going to do.

[AQUAMAN]

What transpired at the meeting today at 3:30pm, anyone go? 

[XLFD]

A quick recap of the meeting is that is about 10 members of the public showed up, almost all present spoke up against it in one way or another (the others present had already made their thoughts known at previous meetings).  The officials present then talked over an hour about stuff they thought was important in making the ordinance better, rarely dealing with what was brought up and never answering any of the questions, other than saying a rumor had no merit.

[XLFD]

I'm working on an article dealing with that meeting, fact-checking some stuff, probably have it ready tomorrow.