City to homeowner: Let us in, or get out

City to homeowner: Let us in, or get out

www.wnd.com

A Pennsylvania man who refuses to allow city officials to enter his home without a warrant has been forced out to stay in a hotel instead, evicted by a notice posted on his door that forbids him from using or occupying the building he owns.

(visit the link for the full news article)

I know its WND and some people here take issue to the site. I wonder if we can get outside collaboration on this.

Its scary that their are so many laws on the books that they can circumvent the Constitution whenever and wherever they feel like.

Good? Bad? Whats your take on this.... Please a good discussion on constitutional rights is good for the soul as Americans!


www.wnd.com
(visit the link for the full news article)

As its part of a duplex they share pipes and what not. They need to be inspected as its part of the property he rents.

I have no issue with this, he knew the terms, or should have, when he decided to rent out his property.

reply to post by jd140


I agree but why is the ordinance include the private residence of the renter? I can see the rentee, and the laws applied to them, because frankly as you put, its most likely in the contract that this ordinance is in effect and they must obide by it.

"believes the city knocking on the door and demanding warrantless entrance and inspection of his private residence – just because it also happens to be part of a rental building – is a violation of the U.S. Constitution's Fourth Amendment. "

Does he, being the owner have to draw up a contract on himself to reside in that residence? He owns the portion he is living in and not renting that part out.

Also, there is presedence with a Supreme Court ruling that I am trying to verify as I post this

"Marcavage highlighted the 1967 Camara v. Municipal Court of City and County of San Francisco case, in which the Supreme Court overturned conviction of a tenant for refusing a housing code inspection.

"We hold that administrative searches of the kind at issue here are significant intrusions upon the interests protected by the Fourth Amendment," the court ruled, "that such searches when authorized and conducted without a warrant procedure lack the traditional safeguards which the Fourth Amendment guarantees to the individual."

reply to post by jd140


Those weren't the terms when he began renting it out. They changed them and he refused to renew his license since he would be agreeing to the unlawful search in doing so.



Dunno. The 4th amendment is the 4th amendment.

"We've got to defend our rights," Marcavage said, "especially after the Supreme Court's recent decisions on eminent domain."

Marcavage also pointed to a case in Red Wing, Minn., to argue that it's not just renters and landlords that need to be concerned about the erosion of the Fourth Amendment.

In the 2006 case of Stewart v. City of Red Wing, landlords similarly rejected the city's attempt to require warrantless code inspections. During the case, however, it was discovered city officials were considering the inspection of rental properties as only a first step, before seeking the ability to inspect all private residences in the city.

(From the Link)

reply to post by RoofMonkey


He is the rentor, living in the complex he rents out to other tenants and he was refusing entry to his portion of the complex that he is a private owner of, not a rentor

It is a business. The city is within its rights to inspect it, as they can restaurants or hotels. He could have a rats, cockroaches and the plague, which could have a detrimental affect on the renters.

reply to post by ownbestenemy


That was my point.

Its the same if he lived in an apartment complex he rented out. He has to allow inspections by the city if he rent the property, even his own.

A duplex is just two apartment buildings, they share pipes and electrical wiring. They have to be inspected by the city to make sure he is within the city ordinance.

Im just playing Devil's Advocate here really --

So, say now you run a small business out of your home, are you then subject to the city to inspect you at anytime?

What about an Avon lady, its a legit business, that is usally ran out of a home, can the city then just decide they want to place you under a certain rule or city code to inspect? Where does the inspection end? Why not have a strict guidleline to follow such as set inspections that are known, and the ability to inspect due to complaint of such things as bad wiring, cockroaches, etc?

Originally posted by ownbestenemy
reply to post by RoofMonkey

 

He is the rentor, living in the complex he rents out to other tenants and he was refusing entry to his portion of the complex that he is a private owner of, not a rentor

Umm.. I'm pretty sure that is what this means : "Those weren't the terms when he began renting it out."

reply to post by ownbestenemy


If that buisness you run out of your house means you have customers coming and going out of your home and it is listed as a buisness address, then yes they are subject to being inspected.

reply to post by RoofMonkey


Doesn't matter, those are the terms now to ensure those who rent their property out aren't renting roach infested, run down, bad wiring, bad plumbing crap holes.

Originally posted by jd140
reply to post by RoofMonkey

 

Doesn't matter, those are the terms now to ensure those who rent their property out aren't renting roach infested, run down, bad wiring, bad plumbing crap holes.

Why? Municipal "codes" change all the time. Plumbing code, fire code, electrical code, et c.

Buildings get a "certificate of occupancy" upon completion of construction,ONLY IF they are in compliance with then-exisitng codes.

They do not get re-inspected every time one of the codes changes.

If I live in a "crap hole" and someone wants to pay me to live there, too, I can do it without opening myself up to harassment from "authorities."

No one is forcing ANY tenants to move in or stay. It can be VACANT!

The SCOTUS botched similar thinking in Kelo v. City of New London in 2005 when it upheld the forced relocation of residents for "urban renewal" projects run, in part, by Pfizer.

Today, the "projects" are dead, the land vacant and the area blighted by the same "authorities" who forced the residents out.

PA recently avoided a similar travesty when the Pennsylvania Supreme Court declined hearing a case that could have directly addressed “Kelo” issues. The Redevelopment Authority of Lawrence County decidied it wanted certain properties that it then condemned pursuant to Pennsylvania’s Urban Redevelopment Law (“URL”). The Lawrence County Planning Commission determined that the condemned properties were in a blighted area under the URL because they were “maintained in economically undesirable uses.”

Here, the landowners won, but the issue may rise again under "stimulus" programs coming to a hme near you.

Why not just do away with ALL private property, and "redistribute the wealth?"

jw