[Dave]

If one goes to the following link:
Common Council Agenda for 9/18/2007
under "Ordinances", the first one up for 1st reading is titled "AN ORDINANCE OF THE COMMON COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF MICHIGAN CITY, INDIANA, REGULATING SMOKE DETECTORS FOR RENTAL PROPERTIES."

I've seen a copy of this proposed ordinance. While I am of the opinion that smoke detectors are a good thing, I have to think that Michigan City already has laws in place (ordinances, building code, etc.) requiring landlords to have smoke detectors in rental units.

This ordinance would require landlords to submit to the city names of everyone living in rental units. It isn't clear to me how landlords are supposed to verify the identities of their tenants. Drivers license, state ID, passport, or just the tenant's word. Granted, if I was a landlord I would certainly want to know whoi was living in my property, but I am not sure I would want to have to report this information to some government bureaucrats.

Smoke detectors = good. I think we can all agree on that. But I don't see how identifying tenants is going to make a smoke detector grow where there isn't one, or make an existing smoke detector grow batteries if it doesn't have any.

So, what's the ulterior motive here? Why do the sponsors of this ordinance REALLY want it passed?

My first guess (and after some discussion with friends and consideration, still my best guess) is that this is racially motivated, specifically targeting people with Hispanic surnames. The version of the ordinace I saw stated that information given the city by the landlords and tenants on the form required by the ordinance would be shared with other units of government, which makes me think the Department of Immigration. The implication being, of course, that illegal immigrants would be subject to discovery/deportation from the information provided on the forms.

I am of the understanding that the presence of illegal immigrants is currently a hot button issue in LaPorte, but not so much here, and this may be a pre-emptive move to prevent illegals from coming here. However, while I am against illegal immigration (firstly because it's illegal, and secondly because it makes law abiding immigrants look like chumps for following the rules), I don't see why landlords should be required to be snitches for the INS. I also dislike it when the government claims to be doing something for one reason (National Security, public safety, "...for the CHILDREN!"), when the actual reason is something else. Because the "something else" invariably means more government expense, and more often than not means the government is going to poking its big nose into my business (or if you prefer, more erosion of everyone's individual rights to privacy).

OK, I'm done with my rant. Anyone else care to play "Guess the Ulterior Motive"?

Dave

[Southsider2k12]

If it were a little less diverse area, I might be suspicious. If this were, say, LaPorte trying to pass the same laws, I would instantly suspect this. The problem here is we have an arsonist on the lose, and we have had multiple rental units burn to the ground in spectacular fashion, taking the lives many innocent people in the process. The initial proposal was to form more bureaucracy to register and inspect all rental units for safety. That proposal must not have gotten any support, because now you have this new proposal emerging. I am guessing the landlords of MC pitched a fit, and instead submitted this idea. As a group of weathier taxpayers, they are going to be more listened to than the renters of MC, who pay nothing in property taxes.

I might be wrong, but I doubt there are sinister motives at play when the history behind ending up at this point is factored in. I think this is just MC's leadership trying to look like they are doing "something", while simultaniously bowing to pressures from their donors.

[Ang]

First, the arsonist has been in MC for a loooonnnngggg time. I think these rental units are just something new and different vs. his old habit of businesses and city property. And I DO believe it has been the same person all along.
Second, as a renter, I don't like the idea of having my tenantcy reported to any government official for any reason. If the Gov't wants to know where i live, they can look it up through credit records or my social security number.
I am of the opinion that Dave may be on to something as far as INS goes. But, I also fear it goes a little deeper than that. Not just illegal immigrants, but looking for criminals, terrorists, and people who don't really exist. I'll have to keep my ears/eyes open for something similar where I live. If this is bigger than what it appears to be, then George Orwell was really on to something.....

Big Brother is watching us!

[RedDevilMC]

Also, as a landlord, it's hard to keep track of the smoke detectors being used properly. I have walked into my rental so many times with the batteries out of it or disconnected (putting batteries in games, remote controls, etc.). Also many renters I have found have others living in the home who are not listed on the lease. It's a hard one to prove. So it will be hard to enforce this without lawsuits being a result (on behalf of the renter or the landlord).

[Roger Kaputnik]

Southsider sounds like the correct assessment.

Once again, RedDevil proves why she needs to be on the Council.

I invented a word for situations like this. Can you spot it in the following sentence? The Council will rectumfy the situation with ordinances like this.




Rectumfy: To make a matter worse while trying to make it bettter, through stupidity and lack of thoughtfulness. ©2002 Roger Kaputnik

[Ang]

Also, as a landlord, it's hard to keep track of the smoke detectors being used properly. I have walked into my rental so many times with the batteries out of it or disconnected (putting batteries in games, remote controls, etc.). Also many renters I have found have others living in the home who are not listed on the lease. It's a hard one to prove. So it will be hard to enforce this without lawsuits being a result (on behalf of the renter or the landlord).

I think, concerning the smoke detectors only, there should be an extra sheet for the renter to sign,

"This residence is equipped with (# of) working smoke detectors and has been tested in the presence of both lessee and lessor" Signed by both and dated, copy to tenant, original with landlord in tenant's file.
When I moved in my apartment, there was a smoke detector but no batteries. I told management and they said I had to get my own. So I did. The people I rent from are slum lords thought. Oh, I could tell you the horror stories these people have put me through in the 10 months I have been here. In Wyoming renters have no rights unless they are HUD so Landlords can pretty much do as they please with no fears.

I understand about the more people than on the lease thing. The guy who lives upstairs from me was the only one on his lease and he had some girl move in then they would beat the heck out of each other on a regular basis. When I complained to management, they told me he's the only one on the lease. It took me calling the police and one or both of them getting arrested on three separate occasions, a written complaint to management, and Mgmt. inspecting the unit (after the third arrest) to get something done. After threatened with eviction, he finally got rid of her. But, now he's got a new girlfriend up there who has just had a baby (I can hear it crying a lot). At least these two don't fight.

But, I still think Dave is on to something.

[Dave]

Well, I'll be at the Council meeting tonight to see how they try to spin this thing. The point I find amusing - and I can't locate the proposed ordinace copy I had, so I'm going to try to snag a copy at the meeting - is, if I recall correctly, the form says nothing on its face about smoke detectors. I could be wrong about that though.

If I get a copy, I'll see if I can scan it and post it verbatim.


Dave

[Southsider2k12]

Awesome. I'd be curious to see it.

[Dave]

Well, nuts. They're going to have a workshop, at which the public can comment. etc. Evelyn Baker and Jennifer Evans said something about already modifying the ordinance (which makes me wonder if this could even qualify as a first reading, should one desire to split legal hairs. Hares? Heirs?). So I guess I'll be at the workshop.

I'll see if I can get my hands on the first version of the ordinance to scan, etc.

[Southsider2k12]

When is the workshop?

[Roger Kaputnik]

I thought that the ordinances could not be changed after the first reading because the modified versions would have to go through a first reading itself. Or is that only if the proposed ordinance's changes are materially affected?

[Dave]

I thought that the ordinances could not be changed after the first reading because the modified versions would have to go through a first reading itself. Or is that only if the proposed ordinance's changes are materially affected?

That's what I would think as well. At least, until I moved here. Apparently ordinances can be amended as late as on the third reading. Why the city councilmen haven't proposed an ordinance banning puppy kicking and amended it on third reading to require everyone in town to be their slaves is beyond me. Well, OK, that's a bit extreme (and that pesky 13th amendment thing), but allowing amendments anytime after first reading seems unfair to me on the basis that there isn't enough notice time to react before the proposal is passed.

[Roger Kaputnik]

That's what I thought, too, of course, but apparently that is NOT the case. That means that we have to be diligent in our watchfulness.

[Southsider2k12]

http://thenewsdispatch.com/main.asp?Sectio...amp;TM=48913.98

Landlords Pressure Against Smoke-detector Measure

Jason Miller
The News-Dispatch

MICHIGAN CITY - The City Council has its work cut out for it in determining the best way to make sure all rental properties in the city have working smoke detectors.

So much so, it voted Tuesday to table a "smoke-detector ordinance" to refine it, using public input to guide the final measure.

"These aren't just businesses, these are people's homes," Valparaiso resident and Michigan City landlord John Payton said Tuesday during a City Council workshop. "They live there. Civil rights are protected by federal law."

Landlords from throughout the city opposed - in part - an ordinance presented Tuesday that would require landlords and tenants to register with the city, and which would allow inspections of rental properties when a complaint is made.

The ordinance was designed by a council committee and Michigan City Fire Department administrators in light of several fire-related deaths in the past few years, many of which occurred in rental properties.

The measure would require landlords and tenants to register with the fire department by signing a form that would show how many tenants live in the property.

At-Large councilwoman Virginia Martin opposed the proposal, saying it will allow all city departments to come into a rental property under the guise of performing an inspection.

She also asked why the ordinance was aimed only at tenants and not at homeowner.

"Is it only important that rental properties have smoke detectors?" she asked. "I think you're invading my privacy if you can come in to my home and inspect it. I'm sure no one will want you coming in."

Fourth-Ward councilwoman Pat Boy and At-Large councilman Joe Doyle both said the ordinance won't allow any city department to come into private homes on a whim.

"That's not what this does," Boy said. "We don't even have enough manpower to do that."

Michigan City Attorney Jennifer Evans said the ordinance was designed to protect landlords and tenants by holding each accountable for the installation and upkeep of smoke detectors.

She said both could suffer fines if they fail to adhere to three requirements.

Landlords, she said, can be fined if they neglect to register and if they fail to provide smoke detectors in their rental properties.

Tenants could be fined for not registering, and for failing to maintain the detectors by changing batteries and performing other maintenance.

The council will hear the ordinance on second reading at its next meeting on Oct. 16.



Contact Jason Miller at jmiller@thenewsdispatch.com.

[Dave]

So much so, it voted Tuesday to table a "smoke-detector ordinance" to refine it, using public input to guide the final measure.

<snip>

The council will hear the ordinance on second reading at its next meeting on Oct. 16.

WTF? The ordinance has been tabled, but it's up for second reading next time? I don't remember my Robert's Rules of Order very well, but wouldn't it require a motion to "pick it up" off the table before further action, or did they somehow table it to the 10/16 meeting specifically?

I'm going to have to watch this online when it's up on the ALCO site. I missed the meeting, I hate to admit. I would have been the guy telling the city council everyone in town is wondering what the hidden agenda is, had I been there. I suppose I should make an effort to get there on the 16th.

[Roger Kaputnik]

Maybe I will see you there.

[Southsider2k12]

http://thenewsdispatch.com/main.asp?Sectio...amp;TM=54464.37

9 Dead, But Smoke Alarms Not Required
Rick Richards
City Editor, The News-Dispatch


Anthony White, 20 months.

Aiden White, 2.

Mark White, 7.

Felipe Bustamante Salgoto, 31.

Roberto Jiamez Melquiadz, 26.

Metodio Reyes Aparicio, 23.

Azael Jiminez Martinez, 23.

Andrew Griffin, 5.

Austin Griffin, 6.

What do those nine names have in common? Every one of them died in an apartment fire in Michigan City. Each died in one of three horrific fires over 22 months from the end of 2004 through September 2006. What they also have in common is that there wasn't a working smoke detector at any fire.

Some elected officials in Michigan City want to put an ordinance on the books requiring landlords to equip their rental properties with smoke detectors, but it's a proposal not universally accepted by city officials, and it's certainly not being embraced by landlords.

As the Michigan City Fire Department observes Fire Safety Month in October, the irony this controversy is stirring up can't be overlooked.

The effort to put some teeth into the city's smoke detector ordinance isn't new. It began in October 2006, barely a month after the Griffin brothers died in a fire on Sept. 24, 2006, at 127 William St. And their deaths came just over a month after Salgoto, Melquiadz, Aparicio and Martinez died Aug. 13 in a fire at 2021 Buffalo St. It was the deadliest five weeks for fires in the city's history.

Those fires stunned the city, and it appeared city officials were ready to act. It was a chance to begin cleaning up some of the God-awful rental units in the city. But a funny thing happened on the way to doing the right thing. So many members of the city council and landlords raised hell that the proposal was tabled.

The 13-page ordinance, which was debated in November 2006, was trashed. Councilman Ron Meer, D-3rd Ward, thought the concept of regulation was good but thought the document was too cumbersome. "We need to whittle it down to a couple pages of the really important issues," he said.

Landlords, meanwhile, didn't want to pay a registration fee (the money would be used to pay for inspectors), and argued that the inspections were an invasion of privacy, an argument that former Councilman Chuck Lungren and Councilwoman Virginia Martin agreed with.

So in December 2006, the ordinance was yanked off the table to be reworked.

It was, and on Tuesday, a scaled down version was back on the table. It would require both landlords and tenants to register. Landlords would be required to install smoke detectors and tenants would be responsible for their upkeep, like making sure the detectors had batteries in them.

It seemed a common sense approach, but it wasn't any more popular than the first version.

This time, several landlords complained, claiming the smoke detector ordinance was merely a ploy to have the city come in and inspect their properties for other violations.

Really? If they are responsible by having adequate plumbing and make sure the roof doesn't leak, that the doors and windows work and that the floors and ceilings are solid, then they don't have anything to hide or worry about. But if they have something to hide, then it's understandable why they don't want to be inspected.

The ordinance is up for second reading on Oct. 16. It needs to move ahead. Michigan City doesn't need to add any more names to its list of fire victims.

[lovethiscity]

http://thenewsdispatch.com/main.asp?Sectio...amp;TM=54464.37

News Flash, never has a fire been prevented by a smoke detector. No ordinance will prevent some idiot from taking out the landlords battery for game boy or because it annoys them while they are cooking.
Bigger problem here is our not dealing with the cause's of fires. True fire prevention. During Oberlie's tenure as mayor of Michigan City, we went about three years without a code enforcement officer. A position that might prevent fires.
Michigan City is a town filled will older homes, a good portion of them still have 30 amp electric services. Services that pre-date Mr. Coffee, Microwaves, Blow dryers, Irons, A/C and so on. Overloading these services cause fires. 60 amp services are to small to safely supply todays lifestyles. Michigan City gives a Not-For-Profit about $350,000 every year gets no finacial statements on how it is spent. This money could be used to help with electric upgrades to over 55 homes per year. That would be fire prevention. That would save more lives, by fewer fires.

[Dave]

News Flash, never has a fire been prevented by a smoke detector.

I don't want to be too snarky, but... DUH!

Of course smoke detectors don't prevent fires, seeing as the fire has to be burning and making smoke to detect before a smoke detector, well, detects. The functions of smoke detectors are to prevent fatalities, serious injuries, and lastly to reduce property damage.

I do agree with you about fire prevention, however, vis a vis inspectors. I'd say not having an inspector to make sure residential buildings meet fire codes verges on criminal negligence.

One of the selling points of our house was that it had updated electrical service. Even so, the standing rule here is if the smoke detector goes off, try to grab the dog and cats and get out of the place. And if you can snag a bag of marshmallows on the way out the door, all the better.

Michigan City gives a Not-For-Profit about $350,000 every year gets no finacial statements on how it is spent.

I'm curious, what NFP would this be?

[Roger Kaputnik]

Yes, I am curious, too.