| Author |
Message |
    
Joan
Supporter
Username: Joancrystal
Post Number: 4894
Registered: 5-2001
| | Posted on Sunday, February 6, 2005 - 6:27 pm: |     |
Mtierney:
I agree with you that illegal apartments pose a serious safety hazard to residents of the building containing these apartments and to their neighbors but Anon also has a point. What authority does the Township of Maplewood or any other municipality in this country have to require citizens to open their homes to periodic inspection?
|
argon_smythe
Citizen
Username: Argon_smythe
Post Number: 527
Registered: 5-2001
| | Posted on Sunday, February 6, 2005 - 7:54 pm: | |
Yeah anon, if you have nothing up your butt, why won't you bend over willingly for the anal probe?
|
bottomline
Citizen
Username: Bottomline
Post Number: 177
Registered: 8-2003
| | Posted on Sunday, February 6, 2005 - 8:34 pm: | |
Anon is right about probable cause.
We are all obligated to obey the building codes, which are intended to ensure safety in construction. We are also all obligated to obey the criminal code. But we don't send the cops into homes looking for burglars or robbers without probable cause. Why should we send in the building inspector on a lesser basis?
|
Reflective
Citizen
Username: Reflective
Post Number: 727
Registered: 3-2003
| | Posted on Sunday, February 6, 2005 - 9:31 pm: | |
mtierney is right on with his negative freedom examples. He is making a strong point.
Probable cause has never been an issue.
Anon - who should be held accountable and by whom on our township committee? Please do tell.
The good news is that ajc is, as always, above the petty, political zealous partisanship of the current and previous crew. |
Bobkat
Supporter
Username: Bobk
Post Number: 7503
Registered: 5-2001
| | Posted on Monday, February 7, 2005 - 4:45 am: | |
I am not 100 percent sure about this, but I believe I read that South Orange has rolling inspections. Possibly one of the Southies can comment on this. |
Earlster
Supporter
Username: Earlster
Post Number: 937
Registered: 8-2003
| | Posted on Monday, February 7, 2005 - 9:22 am: | |
Well, if there is probable cause, something obvious from the outside, etc. then there could be a way for inspectors to get a 'warrant' to look around, however I don't want them in my house every two years, or so.
As far as Art's case goes, as long as he is using his house as a B&B, of course their should be regular inspections, as for any hotel like facility.
But they sure shouldn't amount to harassment. What he describes in his post would not be acceptable to me. Following his quests, questioning, not cool. Making sure he has fire-extinguishers and exit signs, of course.
Also if somebody wants a 'clean bill of house safety health', you are always welcome to have the fire department or somebody else come on your own term. That is different from a mandatory inspection.
If we detect all illegal housing situations in MWD, would this decrease our taxes by $500 a month ? I highly doubt it, but that's not the point here.
Just because people have illegal guns, we don't go around and constantly frisk people on the street. It's just not worth the loss of privacy. Remember we are all innocent until proven guilty. |
Tom Reingold
Supporter
Username: Noglider
Post Number: 5375
Registered: 1-2003
| | Posted on Monday, February 7, 2005 - 11:07 am: | |
I'm ambivalent at this point. I don't like the idea of a government inspection, because you never know what they might see and what they might do about it. On the other hand, I'm not sure what right I'd be giving up. There is no legally guaranteed right to privacy. |
ajc
Citizen
Username: Ajc
Post Number: 3472
Registered: 9-2001
| | Posted on Monday, February 7, 2005 - 3:31 pm: | |
"...people seem so willing to give up that freedom."
Not me Anon! For the record, I'm a freedom freak!!! With my inspections there was never a thought in my mind that I was giving up any of my civil liberties...
It's all about common sense. This is not a police state. Code inspectors don’t carry guns or drag you off to prison in the middle of the night. Of course anyone can demand they get a court order to allow inspectors on their property, but why on earth would anyone request one unless they had something to hide?
Listen, this thread is about code enforcement...right? So who can honestly oppose the need for safety inspections in our community? Really, I'll have to agree with Tom on this one, “There’s no legally guaranteed right to privacy.” |
Tom Reingold
Supporter
Username: Noglider
Post Number: 5382
Registered: 1-2003
| | Posted on Monday, February 7, 2005 - 3:42 pm: | |
But Art, just because you have nothing to hide doesn't mean you have nothing to fear. This point is illustrated when you ask yourself if you want the government to know what you are reading and whom you associate with.
Still, I am undecided on home inspections. |
ajc
Citizen
Username: Ajc
Post Number: 3473
Registered: 9-2001
| | Posted on Monday, February 7, 2005 - 6:08 pm: | |
Well Tom, to pass along an old saying, there's nothing to fear but fear itself...
As I've stated earlier, my property has been inspected many times during the past few years. As a rule they call and make an appointment before knocking on your door. Remember, if for any reason you're afraid to let them in, you can always tell them to get a court order.
However, you should think about this. In the event a substancial number of residents requested court orders, I suspect the towns legal fees would increase so much they would have to raise taxes to cover their costs.
IMHO, rather than asking yourself if you want the government to know what you're reading and whom you associate with, just ask yourself what is it you really fear, then give it up, this is America... 
|
anon
Citizen
Username: Anon
Post Number: 1642
Registered: 6-2002
| | Posted on Wednesday, February 9, 2005 - 6:48 pm: | |
There is no legally guaranteed right to privacy?
I suggest you read Roe v. Wade. What do you think it is based on?
No one is equating an authoritarian State like Iraq under Saddam with code inspections, but there is a "slippery slope" when we allow the erroding of our rights. The "freedom" I am concerned with is the Freedom to be left alone. This is AMERICA, because Americans have jealously guarded their rights against government intrusion throughout our history.
|
Tom Reingold
Supporter
Username: Noglider
Post Number: 5423
Registered: 1-2003
| | Posted on Thursday, February 10, 2005 - 10:03 am: | |
Well, thank you for educating me. I read about it, upon your suggestion, and I learned that Roe v Wade is based on the right to privacy as afforded by the 14th amendment. Interestingly, the amendment doesn't mention privacy, but the ruling infers that the amendment extends to a right to privacy. |
ashear
Supporter
Username: Ashear
Post Number: 1678
Registered: 5-2001
| | Posted on Thursday, February 10, 2005 - 12:42 pm: | |
There is a whole body of law on these kinds of "adminstrative searches." Absent consent a warrant is required, but the probable cause needed to obtain such a warrant is different than for a criminal warrant. I beleive that a statute requiring periodic inspections is sufficient to justify such a warrant, but I'm not positive on that. |
anon
Citizen
Username: Anon
Post Number: 1643
Registered: 6-2002
| | Posted on Thursday, February 10, 2005 - 4:41 pm: | |
Ashear: Thanks for the input.
Tom: Try to find the Supreme Court's decision in Griswold v. Connecticut which first established a general Right to Privacy. It was decided in the early 60s and dealt with an anti-contraception law. The Justices came up with various rationales for ruling that the Constitution protects privacy. The dissenters were Black and Stewart who argues that the Constitution simply does not say that! |
ashear
Supporter
Username: Ashear
Post Number: 1680
Registered: 5-2001
| | Posted on Thursday, February 10, 2005 - 5:22 pm: | |
I think Griswold and Roe are not really relevant, this is a much more straightforward 4th amendment issue. (The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized.)
This is a summary of USSC law: The United States Supreme Court
has held that administrative searches of homes and of commercial spaces that are not
open to the public fall within the purview of the Fourth Amendment.1 See Camara v.
Municipal Court, 387 U.S. 523, 528 (1967) (holding unconstitutional an ordinance which
allowed a building inspector "the right to enter, at reasonable times, any building" in
order to determine compliance with the city's housing code and which imposed criminal
sanctions on any person who prohibited such access); See v. Seattle, 387 U.S. 541, 545
(1967) (holding that “administrative entry, without consent, upon the portions of
commercial premises which are not open to the public may only be compelled” by
obtaining a warrant). See also Michigan v. Clifford, 464 U.S. 287, 291 (1984)
(reaffirming view that administrative searches generally require warrants).
http://www.nlgnyc.org/pdf/warrantreqfire1.pdf |
anon
Citizen
Username: Anon
Post Number: 1644
Registered: 6-2002
| | Posted on Thursday, February 10, 2005 - 5:30 pm: | |
I am not sure where the following quote is from. It may be from Lord Coke a preeminent British Legal Scholar who would ,of course, be known to our Founding Fathers, and who apparently coined the phrase about one's home being one's castle in "The Semaynes Case" in 1604:
"It may be frail; its roofs may shake; the rain may enter; the wind may enter. But the King of England may not enter; all his forces dare not cross the threshold of the ruined tenement."
A legal scholar named Cooley said: "Awe surrounded and majesty clothed the King, but the humblest subject might shut the door of his cottage against him and defend from intrusion that privacy which was as sacred as kingly prerogatives."
|
anon
Citizen
Username: Anon
Post Number: 1645
Registered: 6-2002
| | Posted on Thursday, February 10, 2005 - 5:33 pm: | |
I am not sure where the following quote is from. It may be from Lord Coke a preeminent British Legal Scholar who would ,of course, be known to our Founding Fathers, and who apparently coined the phrase about one's home being one's castle in "The Semaynes Case" in 1604:
"It may be frail; its roofs may shake; the rain may enter; the wind may enter. But the King of England may not enter; all his forces dare not cross the threshold of the ruined tenement."
A legal scholar named Cooley said: "Awe surrounded and majesty clothed the King, but the humblest subject might shut the door of his cottage against him and defend from intrusion that privacy which was as sacred as kingly prerogatives."
|
anon
Citizen
Username: Anon
Post Number: 1646
Registered: 6-2002
| | Posted on Thursday, February 10, 2005 - 5:34 pm: | |
Sorry: Hit it twice |
ashear
Supporter
Username: Ashear
Post Number: 1681
Registered: 5-2001
| | Posted on Friday, February 11, 2005 - 8:32 am: | |
The full quote is "The poorest man may in his cottage bid defiance to all the force of the Crown. It may be frail; its roof may shake; the wind may blow through it; the storms may enter, the rain may enter,—but the King of England cannot enter; all his forces dare not cross the threshold of the ruined tenement!"
And it was William Pitt (the elder) |
mtierney
Citizen
Username: Mtierney
Post Number: 759
Registered: 3-2001
| | Posted on Friday, February 11, 2005 - 4:06 pm: | |
All this legal parsing aside, what can the town do to prevent illegal housing and the potential for loss of life in our community. That's the issue. |
anon
Citizen
Username: Anon
Post Number: 1647
Registered: 6-2002
| | Posted on Friday, February 11, 2005 - 5:22 pm: | |
mtierney: The Town can require a Certificate of Occupancy when a property changes hands or a when there is a rental to a new tenant. Those requirements are perfectly legal and are done in many "more urban" municipalities. The Town already investigates any allegation of "illegal housing". New Construction and expansion of existing construction requires permits and since a construction site is usually pretty obvious I would guess that those regulations are enforced.
Of course there are always people who will try to evade the law. |
Joan
Supporter
Username: Joancrystal
Post Number: 4920
Registered: 5-2001
| | Posted on Friday, February 11, 2005 - 6:34 pm: | |
I would guess that a lot of the illegal apartments are created by either putting locks on interior doors of existing rooms or putting up some form of space dividers within the existing interior space. Neither approach would impact on load bearing walls, require expansion of the existing space or be especially noticeable on the outside.
Therefore the C of O approach is not likely to work here much of the time. |
anon
Citizen
Username: Anon
Post Number: 1652
Registered: 6-2002
| | Posted on Friday, February 11, 2005 - 9:01 pm: | |
Illegal apartments are usually created in basements and attics. They are not very noticeable from the outside. Sometimes the property owner gets caught when the tenant of the illegal space, who may or may not know that it was created illegally complains to the Town about something. |
anon
Citizen
Username: Anon
Post Number: 1653
Registered: 6-2002
| | Posted on Friday, February 11, 2005 - 9:02 pm: | |
Thanks for the scholarship, Ashear. |
Closed: New threads not accepted on this page