And what does that have to do with Richardson’s Rental Home
Ordinance?
Tonight the city council will vote to continue or eliminate mandatory
interior rental home inspections. They will
be voting on this ordinance. They
are hoping to solve some enforcement issues that are problematic. Toward the
end of the ordinance they cite the authority under which they will issues
search warrants. It seems their legal team may have missed a point, or two.
The authority the city is trying to lay claim in the
justification of these search warrants is “Texas Code
of Criminal Procedure - Article 18.05. Warrants For Fire, Health, And Code
Inspections”. The catch seems to be the last section, section (e). Section (e) read as follows:
(e) A search warrant
may not be issued under this article to a code enforcement official of a county
with a population of 2.4 million or more for the purpose of allowing the
inspection of specified premises to determine the presence of an unsafe
building condition or a violation of a building regulation, statute, or ordinance.
So while I am not a lawyer or anything close to it, a plain
reading of section (e) would seem to indicate that even though the city staff,
city attorney and city council may want to use Article 18.05 as giving them
authority to issue search warrants for rental home inspections, the law does
not appear to support doing so.
This may not be a problem though. Those in power seem to
have the right to decide what the law means. In a recent case against
Richardson, a panel of judges concluded that “shall” as used in the law really
means you just kind of, sorta, ought to do something and is directory rather
than statutory.
Just in case you are curious how many people do live in
Dallas County, it seems that the population is just north of 2.4 million; at least it is
according to the census estimates as of 2012.
Just for the sake of argument, this might also bring up
another constitutional challenge, Section 1 of the 14th Amendment,
equal protection.
Section 1. All persons born or naturalized in the United
States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United
States and of the State wherein they reside. No State shall make or enforce any
law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United
States; nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property,
without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the
equal protection of the laws.
If a rental home is located in Dallas County, it is exempted
from inspection by Article 18.05, section (e). If the rental home is located in Collin,
however, warrants can be issued that would comply with Article 18.05. That would seem to qualify as unequal treatment of Richardson residents depending on which part of the city the happen to live.
My view is that Richardson is also violating the 4th
amendment right to privacy and the 14th Amendment by differing
requirement base on home owner occupied versus renter occupied.
These are some tough choices for Richardson officials who
want to control and manipulate those under their thumbs. Maybe they should just
give it up and not require code inspector to become peeping-toms.
Thank you. The city's responsibility should end at the sidewalk. If my trees are hanging over their street or sidewalk, I’ll trim them. If they are touching my roof, don’t think about it. Do not step on my private property. Don’t be peeping in my windows.
ReplyDeleteWhy aren’t owner-occupied homes scheduled for inspections??
Out of over 30,000 households in Richardson, why is it so critical to inspect 2700 residential rental properties??
Residential Rental property and owner-occupied property should be treated the same in Richardson. When the city finds an issue, occupants should be cited….. or every home in Richardson should be required to be inspected, inside and out.
If exterior inspections are required on rental properties why are they Not required on owner-occupied properties?? Are property management companies taking advantage of this program?? If tenants feel the need to have a residential property inspected before they rent, they should get an inspection from a private company at their own expense. If the property management company feels the need for an inspection they should get an inspection at their own expense.
If the residential rental property is not in a safe and healthy condition, it will not get rented. We did not force our tenant to lease our property.
Tax payers should not have to subsidize the inspection of residential rental property. Every property in Richardson should have to be registered. Why only residential rentals??
Next we’ll have judges deciding what we can name our kids.
Well put. It is hard to imagine such oppressive living conditions exist in the United States, much worse, the great state of Texas! There's nothing wrong at city hall a few public hangings wouldn't put a stop to.
DeleteDC, you brought up a very interesting point--Article 18.05. Definitely something to consider before the next update of the rental ordinance.
ReplyDeleteAs certain council members advocate, these ordinances should be reviewed annually or periodically.
Residential Rental Registration and Inspection Revisions were passed in a consent agenda vote, no discussion or comments. I don’t know if the new ordinance 4016 negates 3847. It still requires external inspections and forces the landlord to register the tenant.
ReplyDeletehttp://youtu.be/2GyO3FkxkJM
Watch out for guys in the alley with binoculars.
All the talk I have been hearing got me curious. So I went back and watched the videos on the city website. There were two things that struck me. First was the attitude of that Don guy giving the presentation. He seemed to have taken the attitude that the local government has the right and needs to play nanny to the people who live in this city. The second thing was a comment by the council member that seemed to suggest that the main people of Richardson that should be listened to are the HOA presidents. He was unable to speak well and appears to be quite the idiot of the council. The HOA presidents are not the people the council is accountable to, it is the people who live in the city. The third thing, (know I said only two before, but this one is important as well) was when the person giving the presentation assured the council that nothing has really changed, they can still peek in windows and do bed counts to make sure there are not too many people living in the house. I think the people of Richardson might want to ask for their money back from the attorney giving the city officials and council guidance.
ReplyDeleteFrom this point forward, the new reantal ordinance should be renamed the Peeping Don Ordinance. ;0]
Delete>He seemed to have taken the attitude that the local government has the right and needs to play nanny to the people who live in this city.<
DeleteHe's like that every time he makes a presentation. For him, citizens are to be watched and controlled as if we would do something improper otherwise. I think the culture of code enforcement reflects his personality.
Anon @ 8/13:
DeleteLoved your comments. "That Don guy" is Don Magner, recently promoted from Neighborhood Services to Assistant City Manager at a hefty salary increase. The councilman who couldn't speak well is no doubt Scott Dunn, who is well known to be verbally challenged.
"Peeking Don" is an appropriate moniker for Mr. Magner, because of his suggestion of surreptitious observation through windows while making an "exterior inspection".
Yep, Dunn is Dunner.
DeleteHOA presidents are political cover for what the city wants to do anyhow. Those that are cheerleaders for COR policy are paraded around even harder.
DeleteEverybody wins (except the residents).
Videos to make it easier to see the finer points of the new ordinance 4016.
ReplyDeleteResidential Rental Registration Revisions Complete video
3 or 4 beds in a garage Inspectors looking in windows
Mayor adds her thoughts
Inspect anytime
The Mayor questions her own safety, but thinks she can direct the safety of others. Priceless.
DeleteLast post:
ReplyDeleteReasons Richardson Will Request a Warrant.
There is a lot of subjectivity going on here.... if the inspector feels??
The last point,... they can get a warrant to get into your home depending on what is going on at your neighbor's home.... My city is gone!
They may be able to get a warrant for that reason but it appears it would be an illegal warrant if issued
ReplyDeleteCODE OF CRIMINAL PROCEDURE - CHAPTER 18. SEARCH WARRANTS
ReplyDeleteHow convenient they changed the code in effect to 3.3 million or more…. I’m not sure what population has to do with it but (b) under section 18.05 should be enough to deny a warrant unless someone is rubber stamping them to make an example of certain landlords and tenants.
And what can a normal citizen do if a warrant was issued under false pretense or exaggeration??
The residential rental registration program should have been done away with when they raised the fee from $50 to $75 dollars to defray administrative costs back in 2011.
If 2700 rentals have caused 10,231 violations, just think of the violations they could find if they inspect every household in Richardson. We’d really have a safe and healthy city….. I ponder if HOAs would be okay with every home in their neighborhood being inspected??
what makes those 10,231 violations a warrantable situation? Doesn't that make these violations some kind of crime?
ReplyDeleteIt's beginning to look like we should all just walk in to the police station and turn ourselves in for violations to get it over. Then it will be only the government free to wander the city. Would that make them happy?
Owners can always correct issues with their property that they reside in. If they choose not to then it only affect themselves. A renter, for a variety of reasons may not want to rock the boat and call any attention to themselves and the property that they could easily be forced out of. For this reason a required inspection helps insure a measure of safety and minimum standard of livability. Some cities do have required inspections of all residences, owner occupied or rented. Is this what you are advocating?
ReplyDeleteYes! Some of us landlords are advocating that. We want that rather than rentals being singled out. Many homeowners are such hypocrites that as long as it's only the rentals that are subject to inspections, they don't care. Once THEIR OWN homes are going to be inspected, I can guarantee that there will be an uproar.
DeleteHave you watched a rental inspection in person? If not, you aren't even qualified to speak up! Talk about how thing really are instead of "how things should be."
How does an unpainted doggy door affect the safety and health of a renter?
http://againstrentalinspections.weebly.com/1/post/2013/04/whats-the-point-of-this-inspection.html
A renter complained that the inspection of her home by the city inspector didn't require her landlord to make any repairs she was hoping for. So what's the point? She was upset that she had to take time off work to meet the inspector TWICE for the inspection and re-inspection FOR NOTHING!
>they could easily be forced out of.
This comment shows that you aren't even familiar with the Texas Property Code. Landlords can't arbitrarily force tenants out. Landlords could be sued for substantial damages for unlawful retaliation.
Are you a council member who didn't even know if the window in his rentals won't open, it's a fire hazard?
Yes! Some of us landlords are advocating that. We want that rather than rentals being singled out. Many homeowners are such hypocrites that as long as it's only the rentals that are subject to inspections, they don't care. Once THEIR OWN homes are going to be inspected, I can guarantee that there will be an uproar.
DeleteHave you watched a rental inspection in person? If not, you aren't even qualified to speak up!
Talk about how thing really are instead of "how things should be."
How does an unpainted doggy door affect the safety and health of a renter?
http://againstrentalinspections.weebly.com/1/post/2013/04/whats-the-point-of-this-inspection.html
A renter complained that the inspection of her home by the city inspector didn't require her landlord to make any repairs she was hoping for. So what's the point? She was upset that she had to take time off work to meet the inspector TWICE for the inspection and re-inspection FOR NOTHING!
>they could easily be forced out of.
This comment shows that you aren't even familiar with the Texas Property Code. Landlords can't arbitrarily force tenants out. Landlords could be sued for substantial damages for unlawful retaliation.
Are you the council member who didn't even know that if the window in your rentals won't open, it's a fire hazard?
"A renter, for a variety of reasons may not want to rock the boat and call any attention to themselves and the property that they could easily be forced out of."
DeleteFirst of all, no renter can be easily forced out. It's not even easy to get a renter out who doesn't pay his rent, much less for some nefarious reason like a landlord retaliating because his tenant asks for health-and-safety repairs.
Second, you make the same mistake that almost all advocates of rental inspections do, displaying the bias that most renters are lower-class, helpless and at the mercy of their landlords. Maybe this is true in some delapidated multi-family housing project, but these renters would be a tiny and easily identifiable fraction of the single-family-home renters in Richardson. Those would be the slums, and I guarantee the city knows right where those vulnerable people are without forcing its way into every rental house in the city.
Besides which, just because the advocates of rental inspections tack "health and safety" onto the end of all their arguments doesn't meant that is truly where their sympathies lie.
Richardson's rental ordinance was conceived amidst an uproar about excessive on-street parking and over-occupancy of houses in 2003. It's evoloved into a way for people to find a scapegoat (rental homes) for the decline of some neighborhoods.
So let's not pretend that tenant health and safety is the true motivation behind rental inspections.
This is such misguided speculation:
Delete“A renter, for a variety of reasons may not want to rock the boat and call any attention to themselves and the property that they could easily be forced out of.”
You obviously have never lived in a residential lease or provided a residential lease. The point you make is the perfect argument for not inspecting a residential lease – “a tenant may not want to rock the boat and call any attention to themselves” – inspecting to be sure the outlets behind the bed have covers on them is a little intrusive to me.
When a tenant signs a private property lease, they are responsible for the property…. Read a lease before you presume to know how a landlord and tenant will handle an issue. Did you know it is already against the law for a landlord to allow an unsafe or unhealthy condition to continue after it has been brought to the landlord’s attention?? It is the landlord’s responsibility by law to provide a safe and healthy residential lease and it is the tenant’s responsibility to advise the landlord of an unsafe or unhealthy condition. Also, it is the landlord’s prerogative to inspect their property every week if they wanted to.
I would propose that the city publish every citation they issue. This would do two things. Prevent the city from over dramatizing the number of windows painted shut and provide tenants with a list of things they could look for when leasing a property. 10,000 citations attributed to 2700 residential lease properties is a little far fetched don’t you think??
Last but not least, name one city that requires every residence to be inspected. These ineffectual specious arguments have to stop!
Tenants Rights
Texas Property Code
A private property lease is a contract between two private individuals.