'Renumeration' and the Ludington Rental Inspection Ordinance

[XLFD]

Most every landlord and tenant in Ludington were very upset when the rental inspection ordinance (RIO) was passed this last fall.  Even many other folks who vocally contested the RIO were disappointed due to the loss of rights of these Ludington homeowners and home-dwellers. 

And even though there has not been any legal remedy filed against the over-reaching ordinance as of yet, there is a convenient way out that the City of Ludington has inadvertently provided in their recent mailing of registration forms to those buildings that they believe have rental unit(s) within. 

This mailing included what amount to pages 5-8 of the 2015 Rental Inspection Ordinance found at the city website.  Now, I have maintained at the city council meetings that Ludington had effectively no property maintenance code, as they had passed the International Property Maintenance Code (IPMC) in 2000 to replace the existing code, then went and got repealed four years later (as detailed here) without a replacement since that time.  They could have easily fixed that with re-adopting the IPMC this last year, but they haven't. 

Since that was pointed out, City Attorney Richard Wilson made a nonsense argument saying that between 2000 and 2004 both the old code and the IPMC were in force in Ludington, but these conflicting codes could not coexist at the same time.  Nor has the 'old code' ever been formally repealed (other than by adopting a new one in 2000), but it is not codified in the city code.  The Ludington Property Maintenance Code has no content.

But you don't even need to rely on disputing a code that the city believes exists, the City Building Department have made it possible for everyone to opt out of this crazy program that the city is using to grow itself bigger.  If you are a landlord or a suspected landlord you probably have received a registration packet in the mail recently, the first page (with the homeowner's name and address in the blacked-out area) looks like this:

This cover letter is all fine and dandy, the second page (which is the same as page 6 in the city link) permits anybody to opt out of rental inspections, and do so within the manufactured rules of the city.  In their zeal to take more money from you and your tenants, and to wreck the Ludington rental housing market, a simple clerical error allows you to attest that your property is not a rental unit.  Check out your powers of observation using the highlights to help you out:

Those knowledgeable of the English language may key in on the word 'renumeration', and know something is wrong here.  The City may mean 'remuneration', which is to pay for goods and/or services.  Many dictionaries do not define renumeration, a frequent misuse of the word remuneration, but when they do it means the act of recounting (as noted here).

So you may have people other than family living in a place you own, but as long as you or they do not pay for recounting something, you do not have a rental unit according to the definitions given you by the City of Ludington.  Definitions given to you to decide whether you can opt out.  Unless you are housing someone who double checks your accounting, and gets paid for doing so, you can sign this disclaimer for all of your properties. 

[Willy]

Bravo X. I would have brushed over that myself if you had not brought it to our attention. As far as the rest of the letter goes. In my opinion folks are not required to sign anything. Not signing is not an illegal act.  first of all the notice sent out says that if a landlord fails to register any unit as a rental there will be a $500 fee for each unit not registered. I would suggest that this should be ignored because this so called fee is not a fee but a penalty for not registering. Let the City prove it's a rental, then let the City prove you own it, then let the City prove you are the landlord, then let the City prove you knew about the rental registration, then let the City prove you received notification that requires registration. Then if the City continues, file an appeal. I'm also finding it difficult to define the word "inteded" which is located in the "rental unit" definition. If enough people stand up to this over regulation by the City it might go away after the next elections when all of those non representative Council members are replaced.

[XLFD]

It's simply amazing how careless the COL, and its 57 city attorneys, have been in drafting this monster.  The definitions on the waiver form define terms differently than what the ordinance says, so which do you believe.  But even on the last page where you certify your willing (even if strongly coerced) complicity with the City's new policy, it tells you that if you have falsely represented anything in your application you may get it denied.  Doggone it, if it's denied the penalty is what-- getting no inspection?   

Likewise, if you plan on fighting for you and your tenants right to privacy and allow (or even encourage) them to request warrants for such searches, how can you sign without having falsified your application since you are not willingly permitting them to commit their home invasion? 

Solve the dilemma by signing the waiver, and don't sign the rental registration application as you re not being renumerated for providing housing.

[Willy]

57 ? My Lord what are they thinking. Nobody needs 57 lawyers. Good point about the falsification phrase X. Most people just skim over this type of paperwork but they shouldn't because they are relinquishing their rights by not paying attention to what they are agreeing to. Another glaring anti Constitutional fact that sticks out is that the landlord cannot grant an inspection without the tenant's approval. Even the landlord cannot enter the property without the tenant's permission unless it's some sort of emergency. An inspection is certainly no emergency. I think the best bet would be to not sign anything because with the City and it's legal staff demonstrating ignorance of the law it would be a good bet they would erroneously try enforce the document if it was signed. If a landlord was compelled to send that slip back I would suggest just writing on the paper that they believe the notice and rental inspection are unconstitutional and that the City is denying them their rights.  Then let the City figure out exactly what they are trying to enforce. Of course most people do not want to rub City Hall the wrong way but unless people stand up to this foolishness then the City will prevail.  

[AQUAMAN]

When it comes to Shyster Shay and Warped Wilson, do you really expect anything other than amazingly carelessness and unethical behavior? This foolishness isn't going to change unless those bufoons are replaced, as well as other councilors are replaced. You can't replace councilors if no one runs against them. If their replacements after term-limited councilors can't run are more hand-picked cronies like Krauch, Moonbeam, Tykoski, Johnson, Castonia, and Rathsack, then nothing is going to change. We've got a revolving door of cronies on the panels that recommend ordinances and charter changes to the councilors. Until that basic premise changes, then we are all doomed for infinity. They have the ground rules on a fixed agenda schedule, so nothing can change without that being destroyed from the roots up.

[snide]

I got one of these letters at the house of my wife's ( now ailing and in a home) mother. The same house was lived in by her grandparents for 40+ years..... in short IT WAS NEVER A RENTAL PROPERTY.EVER.  Who determines to whom these letters are sent and why are they harassing me..?

[Willy]

snide, I would just ignore it. Just because the City thinks a dwelling is rental property doesn't make it so. Your mother in law has no legal obligation to respond. If she was required to sign that letter then that would mean that every dwelling in the City that is not a rental would require the owners to sign that paper to verify that their property is not a rental. The City doesn't have that authority.

[AQUAMAN]

I can sympathize with your position snide, it's pretty negligent at best imho. Before you toss or ignore that letter, remember that Warped Attorney Wilson made some comments about ignoring or non-compliance, and that fines/incarceration/forced inspections may result. It would be a civil infraction of a misdemeanor. Try sending back a certified letter of explanation just as you have here, and ask where they got that false assumption from. If they continue in this false pursuit, you may pass it by the city council or Mayor. If that too fails, which seems impossible, then you will be forced to have an attorney send them a letter. If that letter is addressed to occupant/resident, they may have a typo on the address. If it has mother-in-laws name on it, it's got to be answered in some form, either letter, or simply by phone might work.

[Willy]

People must stand up to this bullying by the City. If forcing  people to sign that letter was lawful then all the City would have to do is send it to every house in the City and require all residents to sign. The fact is they cannot legally do that. There must be evidence of a violation of the law in order to prosecute or fine people for non noncompliance. No one is required to sign any affidavit if they choose not to. In order to counteract  this gross invasion of privacy a firm stance must be taken, otherwise the City will just roll over the citizenry.  The City is bluffing on this issue hoping that people will make their job easy by meekly bowing to their demands. People do not have to prove anything to the City. If they think that there exists a housing rental violation it's up to the City to prove it.