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.

[stump]

I heard that there was a committee meeting on the rental housing inspections thursday afternoon. It seems that the committee wants to have the building inspector to enforce building codes to the cities liking not what the national building codes say. It seems that there hell bent to pass this . The class action law suit was brought up by a committee member and Shay said don't worry the city will get it dismissed. Also discussion on making the landlords pay more .

[XLFD]

None of that sounds too surprising.  Recall, this is the council that looked at the national fire codes as insufficient before passing their own subjective fire code last fall which allows any Ludington police or fire official the ability to shut down your controlled yard fire by declaring it a public nuisance, even if the fire is otherwise conforming to all the rules and standards.  They then amended the junk and tall grass ordinances, taking away the procedural safeguards that allowed people due process, so that they can now (without any directed notice thereof) enter your yard and take away stuff that they declare as junk, or mow your lawn and charge you premium rates. 

The citizens, mostly silent, allowed the councilors to enter into their yards unchecked, and now the city council is just taking the logical next step for the tyrannically inclined, entering your houses and bedrooms.  Federal standards, of course, will need to be enhanced to allow them to subjectively declare your interior as a public nuisance where you conform to their standards... or else.

[XLFD]

If anyone has anything more definite from this committee meeting, please let us know.  What is interesting, is that they are not bringing the rental inspection issue up on Monday according to the agenda and packet for the meeting, not even a first reading of a proposed ordinance.  Something impeded their timetable, for it was mentioned that they would have something for this upcoming meeting at the special meeting held last week.

[Inquiring Mind]

I understand that the committee meeting Thursday lasted 2 1/2 hours. They did answer questions but now they are redoing the draft of the ordinance so they can avoid having to have the Building Inspector testify at any eviction proceedings for the Landlords unless the Landlords pay for his time. They also are going to use the landlords clause in their rental agreements that says the landlord may enter the rental units if they give the tenants notice to enforce the inspections. The Building Inspector wants a definite inspection list of what the city wants inspected so he will have no liability for approving apartments that may later have problems. The city also wants to charge the tenants an inspection fee if they call the city to complain about their rental unit. This ordinance push seems to be dominated by the appointed 4th ward councilman Mike Krauch who is an attorney not licensed in the State of Michigan for some reason. He stated they needed to hurry up and get this passed.They are planning another committee for this coming week. I am not sure of the date or time yet but landlords and tenants alike should attend.

[XLFD]

Thanks for joining the Ludington Torch and giving us that update, Inquiring Mind.

If your information is accurate, we can draw several conclusions from it.  First, there appears to be an urgency behind getting it passed, an impression I drew from Krauch at the special meeting on the 13th.  This is an effort to lessen the political ramifications, I'm thinking, since five council seats of seven come up for re-election next year, and their votes now may seem less significant then.  That includes Krauch's seat which has been illegitimately held since the end of last year.

Second, they appear to think that the BI's testimony would be in high demand for eviction proceedings, but I just don't see that except when a landlord is forced to evict because the unit cannot qualify for a certificate and the tenant refuses to leave.  A failed inspection due to the tenant's actions/inactions would speak for itself, when regular evictions happen, and would general be immaterial to the root cause (non-payment of rent or other significant lease violations). 

Third, they assume all rental agreements have the same clause in them for allowing landlords the ability to enter the premises if they give timely notice; however, most clauses allow such entry only for maintenance, repair, and other such issues, and not explicitly for inspections, which would be a lease violation for the landlord and open them up for litigation by the cagy tenant.

Fourth, the tenants will not ever call for city inspections if they are forced to pay for them, with the exception of those who have already tried the other agencies and have gotten no results simply because they have not as Draconian of codes as the city's. 

Let's be frank, a tenant can typically adapt his unit so that it would fail an inspection:  get it messy, import some vermin and cockroaches, and voila, a failed inspection.  Similarly, if the landlord wants to get rid of a tenant, he can rig the unit so that it fails, have a unit declared unfit to live in, and  he doesn't have to go through a long process.  What a lot of potential messes arise with this addition to a system that already seems to cover the dispute process fairly between parties.

[Willy]

Well stated X. Tenets cannot be charged for inspections because they are only reporting violations of the City law. It would be the same as charging someone for reporting a crime. 

[XLFD]

Let's not forget that the city wants to charge landlords just for the act of renting out properties, but that's a good point, Willy.  However, even though I prevailed in both a FOIA and an Open Meetings Act lawsuit against the City of Ludington in 2013 after reporting to the courts that they had violated both of those acts, I wound up paying out more than I got back in both.

[Inquiring Mind]

Don't forget the City Council Meeting tonight at 6:30 p.m. You can still make comments about the Rental Housing Inspections Ordinance even if it is not on the agenda. THE NEXT RENTAL INSPECTION COMMITTEE MEETING IS MONDAY AUG. 31ST AT 3:30 P.M.

[XLFD]

Even if it's not on the agenda for this meeting, remember the rental inspection program is still well on the overall agenda of where this council wants to take our fair city.  Until the last nail on that coffin is driven home, go to these meetings and voice your disapproval.

You don't have to be a tenant or a landlord to do so, in fact it would be more significant if you are not either, for you are among the good people of this nation who would stand up for the inherent rights of others and stand against the tyranny of a select few who would ignore those rights.

[AQUAMAN]

The fixed agenda is the most popular play and drumbeat of the COL city council, and has a fast track pace when it comes to ramming it down citizens throats. Unless and until a full squadron of citizens come to speak against this RIP, consider it rammed down again. Hard to understand why Krauch is so interested in making this happen so quickly, but, it appears he's going to fit into the mold very well the way he's going thus far. Some local in the 4th Ward needs to bump his behind back to Illinois or wherever the next election.  

[Jasper]

It appears the issue is real simple....the COL is forcing Landlords into this inspection BS, which in turn will result Landlords will not be able to afford to accommodate these stringent rules(codes) without spending oodles and oodles of money forcing Landlords not to rent, leaving numerous people(renter's) without a place to live, other than "Tent City" for the warmer months, and relying on the "Homeless Shelter's" provided by the area Churches during the winter months.  

This situation cannot be seriously cannot be happening in Ludington, but it is!  There is already numerous upon numerous homeless people in Ludington, but of course no one in the COL addresses the problem.  Rather, it is "swept under the rug" per say!  If the COL adopts this BS there will be more homeless people with children who cannot find affordable housing, or the availability of renting an apartment will become next to nothing.  

So, the Department of Human Services will be putting the homeless up in the area "motel, hotels" to the tune of how much?  

Does Shoreline Media ever address these issues?  Heck no!  They rather report on a NY Times article saying how wonderful Ludington is as a destination spot.  But, hidden within the article of the NY Times it states something entirely different.  

Some of these codes are beyond ridiculous! 

[Jasper]

Hell, I am still awaiting inspection of footings for a garage, and final inspection after completion.  That was over 10 years ago!  I monetarily paid for this via my "Building Permit."  LMAO!!!