2006_0320_Packet_Study - Laserfiche WebLink

Home

Page 2 of 3 percentages. Percentages are of no consequence unless the hard numbers are also included to lend credence to actual problem properties and justify the need for an intrusive code. All of the code violations that staff inentions (again no hard numbers) are of exterior variety that can be addressed with nc� intrusion onto or into t1�e property. Staff ESTIMATES "that 10% of rental homes are overcrowded", but gives no basis on which that estimate �5 made aside from the numbers of vehicles that may be parked outside. Section 907.28 is a requirement that should be eliminated from any such code. The usage of utility services in small rental units are universally paid by tl�e tenant since the tenant is the one who generates and uses such services. Requiring the landlord to pay for such services would only contribute to the waste of electric and water utilities since the tenant would have no reason to conserve. If the landlord is required to charge back these services to the tenant it would require a monthly s��arate billing which is not always available at the end of each month The electric company already bills each tenant for their electric usage as does the city for water and sewer. If there is delinquency in the waterisewer bill at the termination of a rental lease, that is charged against the property owner the same as it is against a private home owner. Also, there is no problem with the refuse owners in billing tenants for refuse pickup so the city should not insert itself into that arena. Mention is �adc of the fee that is to he imposed for this "service" and how small and irrelevant it is. However, no �zlel�t�ptt is made of the total cost of this ordinance and it is a known fact that the fee would not cover t11e total cost. Therefore, it is a foregone conclusion that the cost will most certainly rise and the fee along with it for future years, which only places added pressure to raise rent structures out of the reach of those w��o can least afford it. Staff inentions several times in several places of "numerous complaints", "periodic calls", "negative impacts", "citizen complaints", etc., but gives no f r�n numbers that would indicate Ch�ti there is an overriding number of problems that need to be addressed by this new code and licensing. Finally, staff indicates t11at a duplex in which the owner lives in one half of the structure could be eliminated from the ordinance. Let me assure you that where that is a fact, there is absolutely no need for enforcement of such a code, since in that instance, the structure is also the home of the owner and is taken care of in the same manner as that of a private homeowner. In such an instance, tenants are in constant contact with the �arkdlQrdlowrter and all deficiencies are dealt with in a prompt and orderly manner as needed and noted. Such a code and enforcement thereof in such instances would be an unwarranted infringement o11 the privacy of both renters and owners. In conclusion, I would state that staff has not made a conclusive case for the institution of this code as written and it should be sent back to staff for further revision and justification. I believe that any violations of exterior property maintenance can and should be addressed by existing code enforcement procedures and that interior deficiencies can already be addressed by tenants through existing procedures. The interior of one's home is sacred and inviolate by constitutional authority, and may i�ot be violated upon the inordinate desire of government or it's staff to determine what is going on inside. Government may only intrude into one's private home when it is requested or when there is sufficient evidence of unlawful acts or persons involved, and then only with court order. This is a freedom in this country that is sacred and must be protected. Tha�lic you for your kind consideration of these comments r ;