Nine Things to Know About the New Scottville Rental Inspection Ordinance

On Monday, September 3, 2018 Scottville passed a rental inspection ordinance that mirrored the one passed in Ludington at the end of 2015.  Even if you live in Ludington or elsewhere there are eight things worthy of notice:

1) It's been a long time coming:  The Scottville Planning Commission (SPC) formally introduced it to the Scottville City Commission (SCC) back in March of 2017.  Even so, the SPC Chairman had wrote several articles with a perceptible bias towards the adoption of the Ludington Rental Inspection Ordinance back in 2015, and had conceivably been working throughout that time for one like it in Scottville.

2) The Scottville RIO is the Ludington RIO:  In March 2017, it was noted that the Scottville RIO would be identical to the City of Ludington’s RIO, which has been in effect there for just over a year.  No change to either policy has been noticed or adopted since.

3)  SPC Chairman Rob Alway (above) has never disclosed his conflict in promoting the ordinance through his news medium, the Mason County Press:  The mission Alway has given to the Mason County Press (MCP) is to be "committed to providing free news and information for Mason County, Michigan, with quality, integrity, accuracy and fairness".  He further describes integrity as the intent "to act fairly, ethically and honestly in every circumstance."

Yet, starting in a March 8, 2017 article where he quotes himself acting as SPC chairman in a pure piece of propaganda worthy of Pravda, and that original March 20, 2017 article, where he describes the SPC as presenting it to the council, ending in the 9-4-2018 article where the SPC is credited with proposing it's passage over a year earlier, he fails to mention his public service as a chairman in the SPC.  It's not surprising that he failed to report that there was public opposition to the Scottville RIO at the meeting where it was passed, which the City of Ludington Daily News (COLDNews) reported.

4)  The RIO was passed in Scottville unanimously without discussion by officials:  Both the MCP and The COLDNews article about the RIO's passage in Scottville notes no deliberation of the matter by the city commission.

5)  The explicit reason behind passing the Scottville RIO is invalid:  Since March 2017, SPC Chairman Alway has been consistent in saying it was necessary to pass the RIO in Scottville so rental inspections would be consistent throughout the county.  Consider, before passage, rental inspections were faced only by the 8000 people living in the City of Ludington, a minority in this county with a population of 29,000. 

It was more consistent throughout the county to NOT have rental inspections, as 21,000 people were not under their restrictions.  It still is, even with those extra 1200 people living in the City of Scottville.  This was a move towards inconsistency.

6) Scottville landlords are likely to pay a lot more than Ludington for inspections:   The City mentions that the Spicer Group and an individual has responded to a request for proposals.  The Spicer Group currently provides the service to Manistee at a cost of $90 per inspection, $70 per re-inspection and a $40 registration fee (compared to Ludington's $50, $50 and $15 respectively).  

But Spicer has an office in Manistee, not in Scottville, so additional mobilization fees will be needed to reimburse this contractor for inspections.  They will unlikely have their fees lower than they give Manistee without getting deserved grief from Manistee citizens.  

                                    Spicer Group, so good at engineering that they always cut off their capital 'S'

7) The City of Scottville will not see a dime or spend a dime on the program:  In the COLDNews article, City Manager Amy Williams explains Scottville's process in defending it as being a money-maker for the City:  "...we're trying to contract the (inspection) process out to an independent firm.  No money would come into the city coffers for this.  We won't lose money on it, but we won't gain money on it."  In this way, it's a bit different from Ludington in that money goes into and out of the budget. 

This means cost will not be an object for them when seeking inspection contractors, and the contractors, like they have in Manistee, will only continue to raise their rates, as citizens cannot say no to these inspections... or can they?

8)  No citizen, landlord, tenant, or other, wanted this ordinance:  The record plainly show that the impetus behind this was the SPC and its leader.  When landlord Bill Stechschulte asked for justification of this burdensome and expensive law, he was given nothing other than the recommendation of the SPC, represented by Mr. Integrity, Rob Alway.

9) New state law allows tenants to deny unwarranted rental inspections, making Ludington and Scottville RIOs unlawful as written: Public Act 169 of 2017 went into effect in February 2018 after being signed into law by Governor Snyder in November 2017.  Summarized, the law provides that unless the lease provides for it, a municipal inspection cannot occur in a rented unit unless the tenant gives permission for the inspection. 

Providing Fourth Amendment protections to citizen tenants in cities with aggressive city halls, it also defends tenants from aggressive landlords.  The law also requires that a landlord must have advance permission to enter a rental unit from the tenant unless there is an emergency. This permission could be in the lease.

If municipal inspections are onerous and expensive, and generally are a waste of time and money, the landlord and tenant might prefer to bar access in the lease to inspectors. In that situation, the inspection would not occur without the tenant’s prior permission, which, if the property is in good condition and is well-maintained, might not be granted. The inspection will then not occur and no one will have to pay for the inspection.

Municipalities still ultimately have the authority to get administrative search warrants to inspect the units where consent is not given, but in order to protect tenants' privacy interests, administrative search warrant procedures must include notice, an opportunity to be heard, and judicial consideration of reasonable restrictions on the inspection.  Citizens contesting the inspections of a municipality hell-bent on searching their rental unit, will see their City spend a small fortune for the privilege if they fight for their right to privacy.

Ludington's ordinance (mirrored by Scottville) needs to be updated to reflect that the City does not have the power to inspect a tenant's unit without their express permission as required by state law, they cannot be penalized through fine or imprisonment, nor can they or their landlord be discriminated against by the City for expressing their Fourth Amendment rights against unlawful searches.

As the second round of rental inspections in Ludington is almost here, we need tenants to step up and fight the power of the intrusive city hall, just like tenants in Scottville should their first time around.  When the City leaders sees tenants willing to go to court to defend their privacy and that they (courtesy of the taxpayers) have to spend thousands of dollars (from their public coffers, Amy)to justify their baseless points to a fair judge, they will need to change this policy.  

Views: 333

Reply to This

Replies to This Discussion

This has to be the ultimate city ordinance of all time. No monies coming into the city coffers ? Or is someones pocket being greased . Just let Joe Blow inspect, he can use the money. What does the city of Scottville gain except a number of rentals closing down as did in Ludington. I guess it does segregate low income people out of your neighborhood and that might be seen as a good thing to some. Manistee has more problems with it's RIO tactics, I can see a lot of houses coming up for sale cheap in Scottvile.

RSS

© 2024   Created by XLFD.   Powered by

Badges  |  Report an Issue  |  Terms of Service