Amy Alcon
This — rental inspections by the city that are forced upon tenants — is a disgusting civil liberties violation. If police officers come to my door, I don’t have to let them in unless they have a warrant. Yet, I am forced to let these city rental inspectors into my home — against my wishes — every three years.

My landlord is a nice guy and fixes things pronto but if he weren’t and I had some unsafe situation, I’d then deal with reporting it. But I tend not to get into situations where I have to do business that way. I pay my rent on time and in full — holding up my part of the agreement — and he treats me like it matters to fix things in a speedy way.

Someone whose landlord is willing to fight this with them needs to refuse this and become a test case. The renter (with the okay of their landlord) needs to deny the inspector access to their place. I think it’s likely the Institute for Justice (ij.org) would help with the case. (I’ve actually spoken to someone at IJ about it — they really just need the people who are willing to go up against this.)

Comment:  Amy is totally correct.  The inspection is an invasion.  The Fourth Amendment protests you.  Hooey has proven this in court now and because of such, if a tenant says and posts on door that he does not want an inspection, the inspector cannot enter.  This is big.  Really big for both landlords and tenants.

Also now, it is my understanding that if the tenant has done something wrong, the tenant will be cited.  Prior to this if the tenant did something wrong, the landlord was cited.

Most landlords treat their tenants properly and adequately with total respect.  Who the others are, I don’t know.  This whole thing is a gimmick dreamed up by the city.  Originally, it was to protect from bad landlords somewhere but the inspectors won’t go there.

Heather Kahler
AMEN  Mark Ryavec and VSA. Finally a rational voice and perspective.

And Amen to you too Elizabeth Wright!  There is all this “pro bicycle” movement to reduce congestion of autos, but no one EVER discusses the dangerous situations cyclists put themselves and drivers in by completely disregarding rules of the road. I would say in my experience perhaps 20 percent follow bike laws. Running stop signs, cycling on the wrong side of the street, and without lights and so much more. Everyone wants to do as they please but no one wants to follow the rules anymore, and it seems the rule breakers have all the rights and those of us who are responsible do not.

And as far as the thefts that occurred on Stanford and Oxford, it forces me to recall a younger vagrant I saw a couple weeks ago with a cardboard sign at Lincoln and Washington on the Walgreens corner which stated “I CAN BEG OR I CAN STEAL WHATS IT GONNA BE?”……

If they are pro skate/life, then they should be pro following the rules so they can stay alive to continue biking and skating. Asking them to follow the rules of the road is not anti skate/bike. That is considered pro I would say in favor of them being safe.

Marilyn Roland

(Photo courtesy of Marilyn Roland.)

Amy Alcon

On my mailbox, outside my fence.

Deborah LaShever
Note: This was Deborah’s second response to a second question.

If you want the problems really fixed, you will support our storage program, bathroom, storage and other efforts–which solve all your concerns.

Otherwise it is smoke and mirrors. You guys say you want solutions yet when presented with the obvious ones you wimp out. You cannot have it both ways.

THESE PEOPLE HAVE NOWHERE ELSE TO GO. Nowhere else to put their stuff. Nowhere to go to the bathroom 12 hours a day. I do not think you get that. Cleaning up once a month or week or whatever is not a solution. At best it is a ridiculous bandaid.

Do you want stuff off the street, shit off the street and trash off the street or not? These things are not magically solved but have real solutions like bathrooms, trash cans and storage space.

Will you support solutions or just bitch and see these people jailed instead of helped and housed? What the hell do you want them to do? Seriously, tell me. Where would you put your trash with no trash can or no trash pickup? Where would you pee and poop if you had no bathroom? Where would you keep your stuff if you had no home or place to store things? Think about it. I really would like an answer.

Seriously, I am asking you person to person. What do you want? What solution would you accept since you reject ours?

Tell us what to do then.

I absolutely do not understand how you can ask for solutions then oppose them.

You talk as if the city is a hero for not jailing people that are on 3rd street. Ha! The city has blatantly turned their head from finding real solutions. They are not heroes but total villains! They have completely sold poor people out. They have millions to help homeless people and what are they doing except increased police harassment and these stupid sweeps? NOTHING!

There is not one emergency bed on the whole Westside of Los Angeles, for example. Not one. Is this a solution? This is what the city provides. Are you personally satisfied with that? Does that sit right with you?

Jails are not a solution yet that is the City’s solution. If you want a change and you think we are on the wrong track you figure it out! No jails though. That is cheating. Because these are real people that need help. Poverty is not a criminal activity. But because the laws are turned against them, people that have nowhere else to go are being persecuted for trying just to live without the benefit of a home. It is not right, not moral, not just, not anything positive.

Have you ever thought what you would do and how you would survive on the street given the current circumstances? It might be an interesting exercise.

Help us help you. Support our efforts to get people off the street and into housing not jails!

Reta Moser
It is unlikely that Joe’s Restaurant on Abbot Kinney and AT&T tower at 1515 Pacific will be heard by planning as previously stated. They have not been vetted by LUPC.