GET A WARRANT: CoMo housing provider insists city inspectors respect renter rights

"Nothing easy about low-income housing in Columbia" 

COLUMBIA, Mo 1/15/16 (Feature) --  A Columbia man known for innovative low-income housing is on the defensive with city officials who insist he sign away his -- and his tenants' -- Constitutional right against warrantless home searches.   

Amir Ziv has joined other property managers who refuse to sign the waiver, which allows police and code enforcement officers to inspect a rented house or apartment without the tenant's consent or a judicially-approved warrant.   

Such one-sided waivers leave property managers exposed to liability, particularly as residents with greater legal savvy and civil rights awareness relocate to Columbia.   Forced consent under threat of penalty is a violation of both Columbia city ordinance and the US Constitution's 4th Amendment. 

"The city prosecutor threatened to fine me one thousand dollars if I didn't sign the waiver," said Ziv, who is "surprised" by the sudden turn of events.

Two houses

At issue are two central city homes Ziv owns and rents.  

City officials sought and twice received inspection warrants -- in February and August from Columbia Municipal Court -- to inspect one of the homes.   The inspections appear on Columbia's police dispatch logs. 

They have not inspected the second home, nor pursued a warrant to do so. 

"I wouldn't sign the waiver the first time, and they got the warrants," Ziv said.   "Now, I'm not sure what's going on."   

A city police officer accompanied code enforcement inspector Bruce Martin during the February inspection, which alarmed Ziv and his renter.  

"I emailed Bruce        before the inspection, telling him I would be out of town visiting family in Israel," Ziv explained.   "But he called from the front steps of the house.   Then my tenant called.  'There's a policeman and another man who want to come into the house,' she said.'  It was almost a blizzard that day, so we were both surprised they showed up."      

Martin and a police officer returned six months later to "make sure I installed a smoke detector battery," added Ziv, who only this week learned of the second inspection.   "They weren't able to get in.  They didn't call me, and I don't think my renter was home."  

Rule of Law

The law appears to be on Ziv's side.

 
Section 22.187 of Columbia's Code of Ordinances provide landlords with a choice.  "Inspections," the section reads, "shall be made pursuant to consent OR a search warrant issued under the provisions of section 22-189 of this article."

City administrators have long interpreted "consent" to mean "from the landlord alone."  Renters are not involved in any part of the process. 

Section 22-189 provides a 30-point checklist for rental unit inspection warrants, designed to follow the US Constitution and Supreme Court cases at the state and Federal level.  

An inspection warrant must "be in writing"; it must "state facts sufficient to show probable cause for the issuance of a search warrant to search for violations of chapters 6, 9 (article II), 20, 23, 24, 25 or 29 of this Code." 

It must be "verified by the oath or affirmation of the applicant," signed by a Judge, and issued in writing.

 

It should not, as the warrant executed against Mr. Ziv's first house does, use refusal to sign the waiver as probable cause.  

The law does not permit that kind of circularity -- you won't let us in, which gives us judicial permission to come in.

The Supremes

 

Landmark US Supreme Court cases have addressed building code inspections in occupied residential and commercial properties: Camara v. Municipal Court, 387 U.S. 523 (1967) (residential); See v. City of Seattle, 387 U.S. 541 (1967) (commercial).   Camara and See were reaffirmed in the Supreme Court Case, Marshall v. Barlow's, Inc. 436 U.S. 307.

The Missouri State Supreme Court took up Columbia's rental inspections in the 1985 case, Frech v. City of Columbia.

In all instances, the courts held that judicially-vetted warrants based on probable cause were required for code-related inspections of occupied premises, which are held to very different standards than unoccupied new construction. 

Indeed, City of Columbia's ordinances mandate the same.

But instead of following the RUCL -- "(c) Consent to inspection.  The application MAY be accompanied by a written consent...." -- city administrators say the Rental Unit Conservation Law MUST be accompanied by a waiver of landlord and tenant Constitutional protections. 

Once routine   

Rental inspections were an otherwise routine part of compliance with Columbia's so-called "Rental Unit Conservation Law" (RUCL).   

Then, two things happened.   

City manager Mike Matthes turned the inspections into a cash cow, nearly quadrupling inspection fees and ramping up the number of inspections required for compliance.  

Inspectors often return to the same house multiple times, with a $43 charge for each visit on top of a $60 application fee and $26 per unit fee.

Secondly, a related 2013 measure -- the Occupancy Disclosure Ordinance (ODO) -- prompted real estate professionals and tenant rights activists into high alert for Constitutional over-reach.  

Council members promptly rewrote the law, which had permitted police officers and city inspectors to inspect "all lease, rental payment, tenant information and the zoning occupancy disclosure form pertaining to the unit." 

"All tenant information" would include credit and employment history, bank information, and other confidential matters disclosed on rental application forms.  

Low income housing guru

One of few Columbia-area builders to tackle low-income housing, Ziv says he first started buying and renovating "the worst houses on the street" in various central city neighborhoods.  "They were the only houses I could afford," he told the Heart Beat. 

He remodeled a derelict storefront building on N. 8th Street, turning it into a showpiece central city home -- and winning City of Columbia Notable Historic Property accolades.   He also sells homes to low-income persons with owner-financing.

Ziv later turned to new construction, building and selling an innovative      house on Alexander Ave.; designing a small subdivision of homes constructed of heavy-duty straw;  and receiving unanimous approval for his most well-known project, 3-5 owner-occupied cottages on a single Ridgeway Avenue lot. 

Though commonplace in many high-cost coastal cities, Ziv's 870 s.f. "Cozy Cottages" (pictured) presented real challenges here.  

"As Columbia talks about ways to encourage more affordable housing, a proposed project is testing what the city is willing to do to accommodate such developments," the Columbia Tribune reported in 2008. 

The housing bust put the cottage project on hiatus, but Ziv hopes he can finish it one day.   "There's still nothing like it here," he said.   "But then again, there's nothing easy about low-income housing in Columbia." 

[Ed. Note:  The author has rental homes in Columbia and has also refused to sign the inspection waivers.]