the war on renters

there was a recent thread (closed due to some participants inability to behave like adults that raised some interesting issues about the differences between owning a home and renting a home and the rights that differ in both. So I found this article.....disturbing.

http://reason.com/archives/2013/08/14/how-government-strips-renters-of-their-f

In Rochester, New York, renting rather than buying a home is enough cause for a search warrant.

Florine and Walter Nelson are grandparents who have lived in Rochester for over 30 years. For nearly a third of that time, they have resisted the efforts of city officials to inspect their home on the basis that they are renters rather than buyers. Since 2005, the city has steadily escalated its efforts to enter their house, by charging them with contempt and attempting to use “administrative” search warrants to conduct suspicionless searches.

The Nelsons and other renters claim that the city is violating their constitutional rights, and last year petitioned the Supreme Court to review the city’s actions.

They and other renters argue that the city is violating their Fourth Amendment right to be secure from unreasonable searches. They challenge city-issued warrants that authorize officials to inspect their home not because they are under suspicion for committing a crime, but because officials want to make routine code inspections. And they claim that the renter and owner distinction is based on a discriminatory economic classification which violates their rights under the Equal Protection Clause of the 14th Amendment.

Rochester has targeted rental homes for inspection since 1997, when it required anyone who wished to rent out a home to obtain a Certificate of Occupancy (CO). CO’s are granted only after a code inspection, and must be renewed every six years, which entails another inspection. Those who refuse to be inspected face prosecution.

The city’s policies have in effect given greater Fourth Amendment protections to suspected criminals and to people who own homes than to people who rent. “It makes me feel like a second-class citizen,” says Jill Cermak, another renter who refused to be inspected. She points out that someone who owns rather than rents is not subject to these routine inspections nor does she have to renew a license that permits her to live in her home.

After the Nelsons refused to consent to an inspection, the city charged them with “contempt,” for which the punishment is imprisonment and/or a fine. When the City Court denied that motion, the city passed a law which directly authorizes the issuance of “administrative search warrants” to conduct inspections. Refusal to consent to a search has effectively become sufficient probable cause to merit a search.

These warrants are generated without suspicion of a crime and do not specify things to be searched. They remain valid for 45 days, permit multiple entries by code officers, and allow officers to film their inspections, which are later publicly available. The whole neighborhood is able to see the letters on a coffee table and the contents of a medicine cabinet.

Inspectors are permitted to look through every aspect of a house, wherever there may be violations of “federal, state, county, or city law, ordinance, rule or regulation relating to the construction, alteration, maintenance, repair, operation, use, condition or occupancy of a premises.” Inspectors may look inside “interior surfaces” of closets and drawers to determine if they are “clean and sanitary.”

“My clients are stunned that they have to fight for their right to privacy,” says Michael Burger, who represents the Nelson family, Jill Cermak, and another renter. “The government has made it so that a whole class of people have no way to prevent a search of their home.”

In 2010, a judge at the New York Supreme Court upheld the constitutionality of these warrants. The renters then filed a petition at the U.S. Supreme Court, but were denied a hearing.
 
what an odd case......city rental inspection programs were established to protect tenants from landlords......locally, unless the landlord is inspected every three years and obtains a certificate of occupancy they are not allowed to rent out the unit.....
 
what an odd case......city rental inspection programs were established to protect tenants from landlords......locally, unless the landlord is inspected every three years and obtains a certificate of occupancy they are not allowed to rent out the unit.....

Not that odd; ever since the creation of the Dept. of Homeland Security, bureaucrats of all stripes and dimensions have taken it upon themselves to overide constitutional protections.
 
the point is, this has nothing to do with homeland security......rental housing inspections have been around since the 80s......I have plenty of clients, landlords, who think these inspections are violations of THEIR rights......never heard of a tenant making the complaint that a city making sure the landlord is making repairs is a violation of theirs......
 
Not that odd; ever since the creation of the Dept. of Homeland Security, bureaucrats of all stripes and dimensions have taken it upon themselves to overide constitutional protections.
a prime example I read about a few years ago was having the Virginia alcohol beverage commission request an administrative warrant for a bar suspected of code violations, then drag along a SWAT team to execute the warrant so they could also search for underage patrons and drugs with no probable cause.
 
For once I agree with pimp.

If one of these people had the roof fall in on them due to unsafe conditions, injuring them, they'd be lining up to sue the homeowner.

These laws are designed to keep homes safe for both homeowners and renters and have been around for decades.

What's truly scary is the level of paranoia today.
 
I can see this being necessary for multi-tenant units for safety reasons. That said, it should be the owner of the complex that the city goes after and the annual (or whatever timeframe) inspection should be a part of the rental contract.
 
For once I agree with pimp.

If one of these people had the roof fall in on them due to unsafe conditions, injuring them, they'd be lining up to sue the homeowner.

These laws are designed to keep homes safe for both homeowners and renters and have been around for decades.

What's truly scary is the level of paranoia today.
ridiculous idiocy. it's only a matter of time before cities start neighborhood inspections on both renters AND owners then. not that YOU ever cared about the 4th Amendment anyway
 
I can see this being necessary for multi-tenant units for safety reasons. That said, it should be the owner of the complex that the city goes after and the annual (or whatever timeframe) inspection should be a part of the rental contract.

Yeah -I can see wanting to be sure that renters aren't stuck in sub-par accommodations that could cause them injury or health issues.

But maybe it should be set up where renters can "opt out" if they think their place doesn't need inspection.

And yeah, it's the owner of the place that should be liable for any problems.
 
Yeah -I can see wanting to be sure that renters aren't stuck in sub-par accommodations that could cause them injury or health issues.

But maybe it should be set up where renters can "opt out" if they think their place doesn't need inspection.

And yeah, it's the owner of the place that should be liable for any problems.

Not if they live in a multi tenant facility. I would venture to guess that most of us have no clue when it comes to determining if our homes are up to code.

As you stated, it is the owner that is liable. I don't think it is unreasonable for there to be an inspection every year, let alone every three years to make sure the facility is safe. Again, I think the city should be talking to the owner, not the renters.
 
I can see this being necessary for multi-tenant units for safety reasons. That said, it should be the owner of the complex that the city goes after and the annual (or whatever timeframe) inspection should be a part of the rental contract.

around here, it IS the landlord who the city goes after.....if he wants to avoid a citation his only recourse is to evict the tenant for refusing to permit the inspectors to enter.....
 
PMP, Constitutional issues aside, how else are cities going to be ensured that rental units are in compliance with various building, plumbing, electrical, fire, etc. codes??
 
Not if they live in a multi tenant facility. I would venture to guess that most of us have no clue when it comes to determining if our homes are up to code.

As you stated, it is the owner that is liable. I don't think it is unreasonable for there to be an inspection every year, let alone every three years to make sure the facility is safe. Again, I think the city should be talking to the owner, not the renters.

I'd agree. Not every year - don't think the city can afford that and that theoretically shouldn't be necessary. But every few years. We've all read the stories about people falling off balconies because rails break and whatnot. When I was a renter, you're right, I had no clue if the building is safe.

Heck as a homeowner I'm not always sure! but that's my problem...
 
PMP, Constitutional issues aside, how else are cities going to be ensured that rental units are in compliance with various building, plumbing, electrical, fire, etc. codes??

I'm not saying they shouldn't.....just pointing out this isn't a "war on renters" as the thread title implies....if anything, its a war on landlords.......
 
I'm not saying they shouldn't.....just pointing out this isn't a "war on renters" as the thread title implies....if anything, its a war on landlords.......
I'm fortunate that I have one hell of a landlord. He's very anal about the upkeep and condition of his properties. And me and my neighbor make sure that's kept up.
 
The landlord is required to keep the property up to code. The renters have to deal with the inspection. Pretty simple. Everyone will blame the landlord in the event of some tragedy that inspectors may have forseen and called for changes.

This is a stupid thing to conflate with invasion of privacy.

As a renter you should read your lease. These things are covered.
 
This is so some landlord can't turn a place into multiple bedrooms and not have safe egress for people in the event of fires. This is the stuff that government gets right! WTF?
 
Back
Top