This past January the Seattle City Council began a study to explore the possibility of a citywide rental housing inspection program. If enacted, the law would allow government officials the ability to forcibly examine rental units in the city and require owners to have their units inspected periodically.

The study stems from the actions of several University Park Community Club members who began to push for legislation for a program in early December 2007. In a Seattle City Council vote later that month, it was determined that the issue warranted further investigation.

Proponents of the study argue that the main concern is for the safety of those living in the units, and they argue that there should be a more proactive approach to rental housing inspections. Councilmember Nick Licata, one of the program’s strongest supporters, argues that many rental units pose significant risks for occupants and neighboring homes.

“I have received a number of calls from homeowners who live near substandard rental housing and are concerned about the hazards that they present to the neighborhood,” Licata said. “There have been instances of fires in such dwellings, particularly in the University District.”

Councilmember Sally Clark also favors the study for the benefits renters would receive from the program.

“We hear that tenants are afraid to report problems and that there is a fear of retaliation for tenants,” Clark said.

Those living in the University District may find themselves particularly affected by the program.

“While many would like to see citywide program, I would be in favor of a using the district north of [Northeast] 45th [Street] as a pilot area,” Clark said. While Licata has not specifically mentioned a particular neighborhood, he is also in favor of implementing a pilot program.

Those both for and against the study have referenced the City of Pasco v. Shaw case last September, where the Washington state Supreme Court ruled in favor of a similar program. In the Pasco case, the city stated that because inspectors can be privately hired and are not necessarily government employees, the ruling did not violate Fourth Amendment protections.

Opponents of the study argue that such proactive programs are unnecessary and unconstitutional. The Rental Housing Association of Puget Sound (RHA), the largest nonprofit association of rental housing owners in the state, is one group that adamantly opposes such legislation.

“Compliance with the Pasco inspection ordinance is no more ‘private action’ than is compliance with any other law, and government ought not be permitted to trample basic Fourth Amendment rights by deputizing private inspectors to conduct the government’s search,” said Charles Spaeth, a board chair with RHA.

RHA President Julie Johnson said that the City Council, rather than creating new legislation, should instead “look at existing coding enforcement.” She also said that existing laws adequately deal with the issue.

Richard McIver, one of three councilmembers who voted against the study, echoed the sentiments of the RHA.

“He would rather consider how these [current laws] might be strengthened, as opposed to creating a costly citywide inspection program,” said Paul Elliott, chief of staff to McIver.

The study is being conducted by the Cedar River Group, a local organization of public policy consultants, and will continue through April.

[Reach reporter Julian Martin at news@thedaily.washington.edu.]