Letters to the editor, Jan. 23, 2012
Rental ordinances are not needed
Did you see the City Council discussion on Jan. 17 about a proposed rental property ordinance? A member or members of the Council asked staff to put together an ordinance to create an inspection and certification process for rental property, which staff did following Council direction. Then after the staff briefing the discussion fell into utter confusion.
I have some experience with code enforcement as well as search/seizure law. Unfortunately based on what we heard from the dais, it would seem the Council has no idea what is in our ordinances or the city’s search/seizure power under the Fourth Amendment.
Based on the Council discussion it would be easy to think the proposed ordinance would allow code enforcement to enter people’s homes anytime they want. That is simply not true. The City Council does not have the power to grant search authority beyond the authority provided in the Fourth Amendment. Given the situations the council hopes to address with this ordinance, there are only three conditions that would allow government employees to enter a home.
First, a search or inspection warrant issued by a judge based upon probable cause. Second, an emergency where there is some serious danger, such as a house on fire or someone screaming for help. Finally, the third situation is with consent. If a tenant believed there were code violations present in the home and the homeowner refused to correct them, the renter could file a complaint and invite the code enforcement officer into the home to inspect the violation. That is it. Code enforcement cannot just willy-nilly wander into people’s homes. That argument is a red herring designed to create fear.
The bigger question here is do we really need another ordinance that interjects government into our lives. There is already a nuisance ordinance (Chapter 6.28) that describes a variety of conditions related to the maintenance of buildings including both interior and exterior issues. There is an administrative penalties ordinance (Chapter 6.30), which allows the city to take administrative action to require an owner to correct deficiencies. If the owner refuses to make corrections, there is an abatement ordinance (Chapter 6.28.040) that will allow the City to abate (fix or remove) the problem and recover the costs, as well as other tools to correct these issues. The City could also prosecute continued violations as a crime.
If a renter has a problem, but does not want to file a complaint with code enforcement, they can always use the resources of the Inland Fair Housing and Mediation Board, an agency that provides among other services mediation between property owners and tenants. The Mediation Board even has an office in Suite 211 at the Mercado Mall.
The proposed cost for this program is nearly $400,000, and it would establish new fees, new fines, and new penalties along with increased staff to manage the process. Based on what we saw at the council meeting, we have probably already overspent on this program.
Perhaps rather than creating a new bureaucracy, the City could educate all concerned, including the Council, about the tools and resources already available. It would seem to me that education is a far better solution than digging further into our lives and our pockets.
Rich Harpole, Barstow
