Mayor Pike Ducks Questions on Rental Licensing

On May 24th, the Bellingham City council had a discussion about rental licensing and inspections. During that exchange, Tim Stewart (former Director of Planning) and Mayor Pike made some unfounded and confusing assertions. (Click here to watch the video - discussion begins at 47 minutes on the counter) I wrote to the Mayor in June to challenge him on his comments. My letter follows:

"June 21, 2010

Mayor Dan Pike

City Hall

210 Lottie St.

Bellingham, WA 98225

Dear Mayor Pike,

I am writing this letter to request clarification of comments made by you and Mr. Tim Stewart at the 24 May meeting of the Planning/Neighborhoods and Community Development Committee. Having attended the session in Council chambers and having reviewed the video of the proceedings several times, I am very much troubled by your statements.

You and Mr. Stewart implied somewhat obliquely that the city of Auburn, WA had tried licensing program of some sort but that there were serious problems especially in single family areas. At one point in the rather confused exchange, you did very briefly interject that Auburn had not done inspections; however, there was the clear connotation that there was something to learn from their experience. As you well know, in spite of Mr. Stewart’s comments and his reference to conversations with former Auburn employee, Mr. Jim Tinner, there is not now nor has there ever been a rental inspection program in Auburn. I talked to several people in their planning department who indicated that they have rental licensing only, at $50 a license. Embedded in their licensing code is language pertaining to continuing criminal or nuisance activities within rentals and that is the issue for which Auburn will take action against a landlord. To compare the licensing program in Auburn with or to suggest that there is some similarity to the inspection program we are discussing in Bellingham is disingenuous. Even their licensing application contains the phrase: “The issuance of this business license does not imply compliance with the Zoning Code and International Fire and Building Codes.” (See attachment 1 by clicking here) I have also enclosed for your information the Auburn code portion on rental licensing (see attachment 2 by clicking here). As you will note, there are no provisions for self-certification and no mandatory safety/health inspections.

Moreover, I find your reference to the city of Auburn to be somewhat of a stretch. That you would select this city as an example while ignoring the city of Pasco, WA and its long term, successful program raises concerns of cherry-picking examples. In spite of your declaration to the contrary, both cities have sizable migrant populations. They have seasonal workers and we have 8,500 off-campus students from Western, not to mention thousands more from BTC and WCC who are off-campus. Furthermore, the Pasco program has survived several challenges in court. While I have found over one hundred cities (see attachment 3 by clicking here) with working rental licensing and inspection programs, I have tried but have yet to find one example of a program that was overturned on any grounds other than excessive licensing fees.

You also claim that you are not convinced of the sustainability of such a licensing program although the 24-page study on 21 October 2008 entitled “Options for a Rental Housing Licensing and Quality Inspection Program in Bellingham” from Mark Gardner, that appeared over 18 months ago, has ample data that a modest annual fee per unit would provide nearly a half million dollars per year. It is difficult to fathom the reason for which such monies would not finance a fairly robust inspection regime. Program costs would eventually decrease as rental units are brought into compliance and the rate of inspections naturally slows. Mr. Gardner provided further data to your staff and to the City Council on the financing options on 22 May 2009 in the form of a 4-page memorandum entitled “Program Variants for a Rental Housing Program.” Perhaps your staff has not shared that information with you. I have enclosed a copy at attachment 4 for your convenience. (Click here for attachment 4)

You also attempted to dissuade and distract the council by saying that the push for licensing comes from a few disgruntled people whose true aim is to ensure the enforcement of single family zoning codes. This is a red herring argument, one which I have repeatedly dismissed, even as I am a member of the so-called “disgruntled”. The code on illegal rooming houses must be dealt with but within its own context - zoning. I urged the council to take up this issue in a separate venue for the purpose of decriminalizing violations and ensuring the inclusion of Washington statutes on domestic partnerships in our code. Additionally, your unfortunate, unsubstantiated and repeated reference to the “unconstitutionality” of the single family zoning code injects a dollop of doubt into the argument that is not supported by case law, to include a Supreme Court decision in 1974 (see attachment 5 by clicking here). Your own City Attorney prepared an agenda item (Agenda Bill 18021) in June 2008 in which this bugaboo of “unconstitutionality” was definitively debunked. I have attached a copy of that item to refresh your memory. (See attachment 6 by clicking here)

You also indicated you had reservations with respect to privacy, although it was difficult to discern whether or not you were referring to the single family zoning issue or to licensing and inspection of rentals. This difficulty was caused by your seemingly purposeful tendency to mix the arguments on illegal rooming houses with that of rental licensing. No doubt that produces confusion before the Council and surely before the citizenry who should expect a clearer delineation of the facts from their Mayor. You will note that with respect to inspections, current state landlord/tenant law already allows a landlord to enter the premises with a 48 hour notice. A recent, 2010, addition to the RCW, Bill 6459 (see attachment 7 by clicking here) not only recognized the rights of municipalities to have rental licensing and inspections but also provides for administrative search warrants in the event the landlord or the tenant refuses entry for inspections.

You also stated that there are more imposing priorities without actually outlining them. This suggests a lack of awareness or avoidance of those issues of importance to the neighborhoods and to the City Council, not to mention student renters. I refer to your Neighborhood Advisory Commission’s recommendation “that a rental housing licensing and inspection ordinance be drawn up for review and discussion in 2010 in a public process.", to the letters you and the City Council received from the Samish, Sunnyland and York neighborhoods, to the editorial stance taken by the Western Front student newspaper (see attachment 8 by clicking here) and to the recent resolution passed by the Associated Students of Western Washington University (see attachment 9 by clicking here). You will also note that the City Council, in its 2009 document on Legacies and Strategic Commitments to “future generations”, commits to “support safe, affordable housing.”

I am providing a copy of this letter to the City Council and expect that at the next working session of the Planning/Neighborhoods and Community Development Committee, you address these topics in a forthright manner to clear up the ambiguities and misstatements stemming from your 24 May remarks."

The Mayor replied to my letter on 28 June. Click on the image at left to read his non -responsive missive which speaks for itself.

Rental Inspections Will Help Bellingham Get the Lead Out

A recent article in the Bellingham Herald (click here to read the piece), spoke to the problem of interior lead contamination (from lead based paint) in homes, primarily those built before 1978. The article also spoke to the issue of Bellingham’s aging housing stock. [Zonemaven note: 50% of our housing consists of rentals and virtually none is inspected for life/safety issues, to include lead based paint.] Not surprisingly, Jon Martin, the development manager at the Building Performance Center in Bellingham was quoted in the article as saying, “We have an older housing stock here. We do a lot of testing and definitely see plenty of houses with lead-based paint…”

Removal of lead based paint is a hazardous process. Identifying the presence of lead based paint is not for amateurs, be they landlords or renters. Nor is it for amateurs to identify structural, electric, plumbing, ventilation and mold problems, which is the reason we need rental licensing and inspection in Bellingham. I call on the City Council and the Mayor to place lead paint contamination on the list of items to be inspected in a comprehensive rental licensing and inspection code.

Tukwila Opts for Rental Licensing/Inspections- and Bellingham?

The city of Tukwila opted in a 7-0 council vote (click here) on 19 April to begin a rental licensing and inspection program for the 4,000 rental units within the municipality. The program is scheduled to take effect on 1 January 2011. Some of the prior discussion of the licensing law can be found by clicking here. Tukwila joins Pasco, Prosser, and Seattle; Washington cities that have adopted licensing and inspection laws.

Tukwila is undergoing the same financial pressures as other cities in Washington State. Their City Council minutes are replete with references to and discussions of fiscal problems (click here to read some council minutes) yet they have found the courage to do the right thing in the realm of health and safety for the thousands of home and apartment renters there. This blogger spoke to Tukwila's code enforcement officer yesterday at length. She indicated that this was the culmination of over 10 years of effort to clean up the dilapidated rentals in Tukwila.

With some imagination, the City of Bellingham can do the same.

Rationale for Rental Licensing in Bellingham is Substantial

[This blog entry is a follow-up to the 24 May City Council meeting during which the topic of rental licensing and inspections was on the agenda. The Council agreed to have a further work session on the issue. The text below was sent in modified form in an email to the City Council]


There continues to be a refrain from some members of the council that they have not heard enough to discern a genuine need for inspections of rentals here. Let me summarize the rationale for licensing and inspections and lay that thought to rest.

The council has already heard from several neighborhoods that support rental licensing and inspections to include Samish, on whose board (for the record) I serve. I am aware that you have received similar letters from the York and Sunnyland Neighborhoods. On 17 March, the Mayor’s Neighborhood Advisory Commission (MNAC) recommended that “a rental housing licensing and inspection ordinance be drawn up for review and discussion in 2010 in a public process." This recommendation was approved by an overwhelming vote by neighborhood representatives that implies some support for the concept of rental licensing and inspection.

There is the definitive experience of cities that have already adopted rental licensing and inspections in the face of exactly the same opposition as we are seeing in Bellingham. Ultimately, each of these cities was proven correct in its resolve to move ahead to protect the safety and health of the renters. We already know that the city of Pasco, WA found that 15% of the units inspected under their program had serious life/safety issues. 10% had mold problems. A full 85% had problems of varying degrees. The city of Gresham, OR performed over 1600 inspections in 2009 and issued, as a result, over 4,000 citations. Lexington, KY performed inspections of units near the University of Kentucky and found that 50% had life/safety issues. Sacramento, CA began an inspection program during which one third of the units inspected had serious safety and health issues. The question for doubting council members is why do you believe that the condition of rental housing here in Bellingham does not mirror that which is found in cities that have the statistics to show that time and time again the condition of rentals in our cities is problematic? All we have to date from those who oppose licensing are broad statements by the landlords and their paladins that are completely and utterly unsubstantiated. I have searched in vain for the horror stories that these opponents of licensing and inspections have predicted. On the other hand, I did find over 100 cities that have licensing AND inspections without the catastrophic effect for the rental markets that the landlords would have you believe. (see this blog's sidebar at bottom left for list)

On top of these statistics we have the experience of fire related incidents, to wit: 1985 - A rental house on High St. near Laurel Park exploded and burned to the ground due to a gas leak. The WWU students renting the place had thought they smelled gas months before but ignored it. Luckily they moved out prior to the incident. 1995 - Six people lost their lives in a Meridian St. rental home that was equipped with smoke detectors that contained no batteries. 2009 - A fire caused by poor wiring destroyed a rental home on Tremont Ave. in the Guide Meridian/Cordata area. Just last week another fire destroyed the rented house at 3130 Cottonwood Ave. The fire inspector is looking into the cause and should have a report shortly. There was also the unfortunate woman in Blaine last February (admittedly out of our jurisdiction but demonstrative) who was burned out of her rental unit (bad wiring). (Click here to read about that incident)

With respect to Pasco, there is a successful program in place there that can serve as an example for us. Both cities have to contend with transient populations (in spite of Mayor Pike’s incorrect assertions to the contrary). We have thousands and thousands of highly mobile students and Pasco has migrant workers. Mitch Nickolds, their code enforcement officer, has told me and I have relayed this to Mark Gardner, the Council’s Legislative Policy Analyst, and to Council President Gene Knutson back in February, that he (Mr. Nickolds) would be pleased to come to Bellingham to present their program. Instead the council gets a second hand briefing on Sacramento, CA and its experience, Sacramento being nothing like Bellingham in size or in rental situation.

NB. We also get oblique comments during a 24 May committee meeting from Tim Stewart and Mayor Pike implying vaguely that Auburn had tried licensing/inspections of some sort but that they had not worked out especially in single family areas. There is not now nor has there ever been a rental inspection program in Auburn. I talked to several people in their planning department who indicated that they have rental licensing only ($50 a license). Embedded in their licensing code is language pertaining to continuing criminal or nuisance activities within rental units (to which Stewart and the Mayor seem to have been actually referring) and that is the issue for which Auburn will take action against a landlord. To compare the licensing program in Auburn or to suggest that there is some similarity to that which we are discussing in Bellingham is disingenuous. Even their licensing application contains the phrase: “The issuance of this business license does not imply compliance with the Zoning Code and International Fire and Building Codes.” The Auburn code portion (Title 5, Chapter 5.22) on rental licensing is available to read by clicking here. No self-certifications, no mandatory safety/health inspections, nada, zilch, zero.

The Mayor claims that he has not been convinced of the sustainability of such a licensing program although the study from Mark Gardner, that appeared over 18 months ago, has ample data that a modest annual fee per unit would provide nearly a half million dollars per year. It is difficult to fathom the reason for which such monies would not finance a fairly robust inspection regime. Program costs would eventually decrease as rental units are brought into compliance and the rate of inspections naturally slows. The Mayor also attempts to dissuade and distract the council by saying that the push for licensing comes from a few disgruntled people whose true aim is to ensure the enforcement of single family zoning codes. This is a red herring argument, one which I have repeatedly dismissed (read my blog entry on this topic here) even as I am a member of the so-called “disgruntled”. The code on illegal rooming houses must be dealt with but within its own context. I urge the council to take up this issue in a separate venue for the purpose of decriminalizing violations and ensuring the inclusion of Washington statutes on domestic partnerships in our code. Additionally, Mayor Pike’s unfortunate and continued reference to the “unconstitutionality” of the single family zoning code injects a dollop of doubt into the argument that is not supported by case law, to include a Supreme Court decision in 1974. Mayor Pike’s own City Attorney prepared an agenda item several years ago in which this bugaboo of “unconstitutionality” was definitively debunked. You can read that agenda item (Agenda Bill 18021) by clicking here.

The Mayor also suggested that there are more imposing priorities (than health and safety?) without actually outlining them. Big Box stores or maybe the Waterfront? Were these priorities enumerated, we might have a rational discussion, however, briefly plopping the suggestion on the table (as one would a dead skunk) that other problems are more pressing is not helpful to the debate and suggest a lack of awareness of those issues of importance to the neighborhoods (I refer to the MNAC recommendation mentioned above.).

I also note that the City Council’s own document on Legacies and Strategic Commitments to “future generations” indicates that it wishes to “support safe, affordable housing.” If not an inspection program, what does the council propose to ensure this housing safety? Self-certification? That is no more than the status quo, gussied up by making a roster of landlords who will continue to operate as usual. Any program relying on self-certification is not worth pursuing unless it is based on and preceded by a mandatory inspection of registered units. Without an initial mandatory inspection, there is no guarantee of safe housing. Worse yet is our complaint-driven system of code enforcement that is, unfortunately, still the national norm and remains our default arrangement. Such systems simply do not work. Complaint-driven systems protect neither renters nor the buildings in which they live. The Centers for Disease Control concluded in a study of these systems that renters do not complain. In the absence of complaints, problems fester. As problems fester, buildings deteriorate and become more dangerous. As buildings decay, they take neighborhoods down with them. The remainder is called a slum.

And now we hear from the students who have finally realized that for decades the rental market here has not operated with their well being in mind. You have seen the Associated Students resolution (read a copy of the ASWWU resolution by clicking here.) and the various articles and editorials recently in the Western Front. (Click here and here) Any further debate on the rental licensing issue should include student input, especially during any hearing, and should therefore be postponed until the students return in Sept/Oct.

Associated Students of WWU Publish Resolution to Support Rental Licensing

The Associated Students of Western Washington has just published a resolution supporting rental licensing and inspections in Bellingham. You can read about the Associated Students by clicking here.

Copies of the resolution can be seen by clicking on the images at left.

This blogger had encouraged students to support rental licensing and inspections during several meetings that he attended on campus. Horror stories of sub-standard housing emerged during these discussions. The Zonemaven also encouraged the student body to make its voice heard through an open letter which was published in this blog on February 2nd. You can read that letter by clicking here. Student editorials in the Western Front also took a hard look at rental licensing. You can read about these editorials by clicking here. An article on rental licensing by WWU student Katherine Garvey appeared today in the Western Front. Here is a link to that article.

Over 8,000 student renters on the market each year can have a tremendous effect on the manner in which the rentals are run. Shady practices and slum-like, dangerous conditions are issues that they will be looking at in the coming months since they occupy almost half of the 17,000 rentals in this city. Students are now getting a sense of the power their numbers command.

UPDATE! Seattle City Council Approves Rental Licensing and Inspections

In a 7-0 vote, the Seattle City Council (with two members abstaining) approved a law to license and inspect rental properties. You can read about the Council's actions by clicking here for the Seattle Times article on the subject. As with Prosser, WA, Seattle sought to approve a statute prior to the 10 June 2010 effective date of a Washington State law on rental licensing. Seattle, Pasco and Prosser will now be grandfathered and will not be subject to the limits of the legislation passed in Olympia in March. Unless Bellingham takes action to pass a rental licensing and inspection code prior to 10 June, it will fall under the restrictions of Bill 6459 - An Act Relating to the Inspection of Rental Properties.

Rental Licensing Adopted in Prosser, WA -Seattle Considers Doing Same

Hesitation not being part of the Prosser, WA City Council agenda, the town quickly adopted a rental licensing and inspection program on 26 May. The new law will take effect on 1 January 2011. You can read an article in the TriCity Herald on the topic by clicking here.

Essentially, the City Council decided to pass a place-holder law to avoid the restrictions placed on rental licensing by the Washington legislature's Bill 6459 (click here to read about that statute) which allows rental licensing and inspection codes passed before 10 June 2010 to be exempt from the new state law. The town of Pasco already has a code in place that will also be grandfathered under the bill passed in Olympia last March. You can read Pasco's rental licensing code by clicking here and scrolling to Title 5, Business Licenses and Regulations on page 106. Prosser essentially borrowed the wording of the Pasco ordinance while planning to amend it at a later date to conform to the local situation.

Seattle is also now considering a licensing and inspection law. There, an officer with the Associated Students of the University of Washington testified before the City Council in support of inspections of rentals echoing the stance of the Editorial Board of the Western Front student newspaper of WWU. (Click here to read about the Western Front editorial) The program in Seattle would pay for itself under a fee charged to landlords. You can read an article on the Seattle licensing debate by clicking here.

It appears, then, that Bellingham is not alone in its pursuit of ensuring the safety and health of renters. Our Mayor and City Council should take note.

Western Front Editorial Board Reverses Opinion on Rental Licensing

A 25 May Western Front Editorial Board opinion piece reversed an earlier, 26 January editorial that opposed rental licensing in Bellingham. The Board stated that it "has come to believe that the health and safety benefits of landlord licensing would far outweigh any slight increases in rent." The reversal of an editorial position takes some courage and this blogger doffs his editorial hat in recognition of the Western Front's decision. (You can read the 26 January editorial by clicking here. The 25 May editorial link is here). This reversal follows a lively discussion held by the Viking Community Builders on 17 May on the topic of rental licensing. The Zonemaven described that event in an earlier blog entry (here).


Noting the health and safety benefits and the inability of students to determine if the units they are renting are in livable condition, the editorial dismissed the objections of landlords and supported the concept of a rental inspection program. The Board also recognized the advisability of the local government to regulate that which is equivalent to a public accommodation, e.g., hotels or restaurants.


The Zonemaven, in continuing conversations with WWU students, has noted a growing movement among them to organize, gather information and to take a message to the City Council that the students will no longer tolerate sub-standard housing and the annual "crap shoot" in hunting for a decent place to live. With over 8,000 renters among the student body, the City Council will have to take notice.

Landlords Resort to FUD Tactics at WWU Forum on Rental Licensing

FUD (fear, uncertainty and doubt) was the methodology chosen by landlord representatives at a forum on rental licensing (click here to read the announcement) that was organized and sponsored by the Viking Community Builders, a student group interested in relationships with the community. Instead of speaking to the issues and providing hard evidence for their assertions, the three panelists in opposition of licensing did their best to obfuscate and divert the discussion with red herring arguments and specious reasoning. Lest the students forget, those speaking against rental licensing and inspection are modern day paladins for the landlords, to wit two of the three: Doug Robertson is an attorney for landlords. Perry Eskridge is in real estate and is the governmental representative for the Whatcom Association of Realtors. The third panelist in opposition to licensing was landlord Mel Davidson. Student attendees should make no mistake. These are rental industry professionals.

Usually, the use of FUD tactics is a sign that your arguments are weak and, therefore, you sow doubt by any means possible. The goal is to make the opposition look bad instead of dealing with the facts. Thus, debate is corrupted. And so it went last Monday evening, although with the questions from the floor, it was evident that not all were bamboozled.

Panelists confronting those who opposed rental licensing were this blogger; Nick Johnson, Editor-in-Chief of the Western Front; and Dave Hopkinson, a landlord in the York neighborhood.


The Zonemaven does not shy from debate but deplores alleged statements of fact that are not supported by any data. While this blogger is tempted to refute here, yet again and point by point, the landlords' disingenuous propositions, readers can peruse a blog entry (here) in which I reviewed a paper on the letterhead of law firm Belcher/Swanson, submitted by panelist/attorney Doug Robertson to the City Council on behalf of the landlords. Mr. Robertson's presentation at the forum pretty well followed that flawed document.


Nonetheless, let us take a look at a few of the tar balls launched by licensing opponents Monday evening in the hope that the audience would grab them and thus become stuck.


- Low cost housing availability will drop. As this blogger indicated above, the landlord representatives provided no documentation, no study, no report, no proof that this would be the case. In contrast, the Zonemaven actually picked up the phone and called an official in Pasco, WA, where a licensing and inspection program has been in force for years. The official stated that there were some really badly maintained homes that were sold and then bought at low prices by locals of modest means who were willing to fix them. That is called affordable home ownership.


- Licensing will create a huge and costly bureaucracy of 5 code enforcement officers. This contention was quickly refuted by Mark Gardner, the Legislative Policy Analyst for the Bellingham City Council. Politely, Mr. Gardner pointed out to the audience that the landlord reps were "confusing" the presentation of a continuum of possibilities with an actual proposal. Anyone who took the time to read the study prepared by Mr. Gardner would have been aware of this. You can read the study here and decide for yourself. Additionally, any such program can be self-sustaining with reasonable per unit fees of several dollars per month. This will hardly break the bank or cause undue financial hardship for renters, even if the landlords decide to pass the cost of licensing to the tenants.


- Landlords and tenants are on equal footing and have equal interests. This is largely based on the contention that the Revised Code of Washington's landlord/tenant provisions level the playing field. Perhaps this is true if you are a tenant who has the time, the money and other resources to battle a landlord whose business (24/7) is to maximize return on investment. Students may have other bothersome commitments with respect to attending class and working for tuition money. Furthermore, the RCW does not mandate inspections of rental properties for health and safety reasons, the main objective of any such legislation in Bellingham. The idea here is prevention and not an sclerotic and ineffective complaint process.


- Bellingham is not like other cities with inspections programs as the others have large migratory worker populations. As panelist, Nick Johnson astutely pointed out, nothing could be more migratory than 8,000 student renters annually. As in other such cities, renter populations such as these are ripe for exploitation given the short time frames in a rental, lack of resources and an inherently sluggish judicial process.


- There is no problem to be solved. This means that Bellingham's rental stock is in good shape and there may be on the outside only a few rental units in poor condition. This flies in the face of the experience of other cities that have instituted rental licensing. It is disingenuous to state that Bellingham is somehow outside of the norm with its 17,000 rental units provided to a highly transitory population. This, unfortunately, is a continuation of landlord contentions that there are only a few bad landlords. They stated this during the large meeting on rental licensing held in 2004. I challenged them to tell the audience about all the" bad" landlords subsequently shut down in Bellingham by action of the "good" landlords policing their own. The response: 2


- Renters privacy will be violated. This is a valid concern for which any legislation should contain language that limits the scope of the inspection to that related to health and safety. Current state law already provides for landlord entry into a rental with 48 hour notice except for emergencies. Current state law also limits rental inspections to once every three years. Given the transient nature of most of our renters, many will never see an inspection while living in a rental. Again, the Zonemaven contacted Pasco to determine their protocols while inspecting units. There, inspectors focus only on the items on their checklist. Obviously, if they see a meth lab in the back room, that would be a reportable condition. In any case, with respect to Pasco, the police have to follow established procedures (warrants and due process) in going back to a rental unit.


For those readers who wish to explore previous Zonemaven blogs on this topic, you can click on the following links:

1. Landlords and Supporters Speak. 24 Nov 09
2. Landlord Misinformation 26 Nov 09
3. A Lesson from Lexington, KY 29 Nov 09
4. Effective Program for Bellingham? 4 Jan 10
5. Letter to Students on Rental Licensing 2 Feb 10
6. Landlord Support for Rental Licensing 8 Mar 10
7. Licensing Not About Single Family Zoning 2 Apr 10


And finally this, written two years ago.


8. We Do Not Know 4 Jun 08


Thanks to the Viking Community Builders for having put on this forum. A job well done.

Briefing at Bellingham City Council on Sacramento Rental Licensing Program

The Bellingham City Council will receive a briefing from staff this Monday, 24 May, on the rental licensing program adopted by the city of Sacramento, CA. The council meeting begins at 7pm, although the briefing will be presented initially to the Planning and Neighborhoods Committee that convenes at 1:40pm in council chambers.

You can read the agenda bill on the Sacramento program by clicking here. Also on the agenda bill is the the Washington State law on rental licensing and inspection that was recently passed by the state legislature. You can read my blog comments on that bill by clicking here.

There is no hearing on rental licensing at this council meeting although the agenda calls for a discussion of options by the council. In March, the Mayor's Neighborhood Advisory Commission had recommended that "a rental licensing and inspection ordinance be drawn up for review and discussion in 2010 in a public process". (Click here to read the minutes of that discussion)