The Editor's Desk

My editorial today took a fairly predictable libertarian position that the City of Barstow lacks the constitutional authority to order door-to-door inspections of rental units.

Though I’ve already gotten one supportive comment online, I’m not holding out much hope that Barstow residents will speak out against the ordinance, given the community’s dislike of some the really run-down properties in town.

The ordinance appeals to people on both the left in the right in the way it uses government authority to achieve wanted ends. On the left, the ordinance speaks to the desire to use the government to protect the consumer from some of the abuses of the marketplace — in this case, poor tenants stuck in uninhabitable homes, afraid to contact authorities for fear of being evicted. It appeals to the right as a tool of law enforcement to deal with a difficult problem — typically drug abusers/dealers/gang members who allow their homes to decay and affect the neighborhood negatively.

Whether or not any actual changes will occur is something of which I’m extremely suspect. I asked Jeanette Hayhurst, city project manager for housing, whether the city was having luck getting absentee landlords (the target of this proposed ordinance) to respond to existing code enforcement efforts. She said that the responses were improving, which sounds like they have a long way to go still. I have doubts that absentee landlords are going to respond to this ordinance or care about the city’s threats.

Before writing the editorial I contacted Patricia Neal, the consultant helping the city with the rental studies and the formulation of the ordinance. I asked her about legal challenges to the ordinances in other communities. She said the ordinance has survived a challenge on the state level over the forced fees. However, she wasn’t aware of any challenges on the federal level on the basis of the inspections violating the Fourth Amendment (the crux of my argument). She doubted whether the Supreme Court would even take up a challenge in this situation, and after the Kelo vs. New London decision (authorizing abuse of eminent domain) I’m sadly inclined to agree.

You can follow any responses to this entry through the RSS 2.0 feed. You can leave a response, or trackback from your own site.