PDA

View Full Version : Newark downplays group's concerns over rental inspections




sailingaway
09-22-2012, 10:23 AM
A political advocacy group affiliated with Ron Paul is urging a “mass” protest prior to Monday’s City Council meeting in Newark in opposition to what it terms “anti-liberty” changes proposed for the city’s code-enforcement inspection program.

Raising civil liberty concerns, group members this week said the draft ordinance specifically targets students in off-campus housing, attempting to “micromanage” and “potentially ruin” their lives by requiring inspections of rental units without the consent of tenants or their landlords.

Not true, city officials countered.

They say the group, Delaware Campaign for Liberty, was reacting to an outdated, early draft of the ordinance, which “inadvertently” stated that rental tenants “shall provide access” to their homes for health-and-safety inspections.

The clause mistakenly was included and since has been deleted from the proposal, said Maureen Feeney Roser, director of the city department overseeing code enforcement.

“It should have been taken out earlier – that was my fault,” Feeney Roser said in an interview.

In an email exchange with Eric R. Boye, state coordinator for the Delaware Campaign for Liberty, she explained the mistake and clarified that interiors of rental units would be inspected only if the tenant or “person in possession of the property” (meaning the landlord, if the unit was unoccupied) grants permission.

“Tenants have the right to refuse consent, and they will suffer no penalty if they exercise this right,” Feeney Roser wrote.

Her reassurance didn’t satisfy Boye, who replied to say two points of objection remained in the bill: A clause authorizing city code officials to ask that a judge issue an administrative search warrant if a tenant refuses entry; and an increase in code-violation fines from a maximum $500 to a maximum $750, upon conviction.

Inspections “should be handled on an ‘as requested’ basis, either on the part of the landlord or the tenant,” Boye wrote. “However, as I go through this bill … the whole ordinance is full of discrimination and privacy- and property-rights violations.”

more at link: http://www.delawareonline.com/article/20120922/NEWS/309220030/Newark-downplays-group-s-concerns-over-rental-inspections?odyssey=tab%7Ctopnews%7Ctext%7CHome

acptulsa
09-22-2012, 10:29 AM
Step one: No landlord in his right mind lets these jokers in and risks a $750 dollar fine, and no tenant in his right mind lets them in and risks having whatever 'contraband' may be around being discovered.

Step two: The town uses the fact that this law exists as an excuse to go running to the judge and get a passel of search warrants.

Step three: No tenant in town has any privacy any more, and the provision in the Bill of Rights against unreasonable search and seizure has no meaning in this town any more.

John of Des Moines
09-22-2012, 10:29 PM
Not that I agree with the Supreme Court but here's Camara v. Municipal Court - 387 U.S. 523 (1967) (http://supreme.justia.com/cases/federal/us/387/523/case.html).

In the decision 1) the renter has the right to demand a search warrant; 2) the city can't levy a penalty for demanding a warrant; 3) the renter can still refuse entry.