Steve Cross wrote: > Actually, my understanding of the city ordinances is that > all rental units must be licensed and getting a license not only > requires a safety inspection but such safety inspections are to > be conducted on a regularbasis as long as the property is licensed > for rental. (Doing so is one of the "burdens" of being a landlord.) > And the inspections do include checking for smoke alarms and making > sure that they are functional. However, one problem that the city > has had is coming up with the money necessary to conduct the > inspections as regularly as they are supposed to be. (You may > write and thank your governor for the lack of funds by the city.) > So, the frequency of inspections all over the city have been > stretched out because of the lack of funds. The very purpose of these > particular safety sweeps was not a one-time thing but was to > catch up on the safety inspections in at least the areas heavily > populated by students. While the safety sweep was completed on a > hurry-up basis, all those properties are now back to the regular > inspection schedule -- but they will be inspected again. > > Now, is that apology forthcoming?
You've got to be kidding. This is a case of being unclear on the concept. The goal here is to prevent future fatalities, not political handwaving and CYA via ineffective bureaucracy that gives the illusion of action, but in reality accomplishes nothing. Problem: 1) Smoke detectors need to be functioning to be effective (i.e., they need be checked and the batteries changed at least annually.) 2) Smoke detectors give false alarms, so people tend to disable them. 3) Disabled or missing smoke and carbon monoxide detectors can result in fatalities. Solution: 1) Require inspections of all rental units when new residents move in. To blame the lack of inspection on state funding is either disingenuous or uninspired. Most housing sales inspections are done by licensed contractors paid for by the buyer. Rental inspection can be done the same way and paid for by the landlord (and of course, passed on to the renters). Inspectors would not need much training and costs could be left up to the market. Minneapolis seems to have an unseemly addiction to organized labor. 2) What is clear about these students deaths is that smoke detectors lack good human engineering. I'm suggesting that the city council require NEW technology (which is not very complex) that will reduce the number of fatalities. 3) Pass an ordinance that requires landlords to check or certify smoke detectors twice annually, i.e. they have to have someone enter the unit and push the test button on each smoke detector and change batteries. What we need are real solutions to real problems, not hat tricks that give the appearance of sensitivity and concern sufficient only to soothe the liberal masses. Michael Atherton Prospect Park REMINDERS: 1. Be civil! Please read the NEW RULES at http://www.e-democracy.org/rules. If you think a member is in violation, contact the list manager at [EMAIL PROTECTED] before continuing it on the list. 2. Don't feed the troll! Ignore obvious flame-bait. For state and national discussions see: http://e-democracy.org/discuss.html For external forums, see: http://e-democracy.org/mninteract ________________________________ Minneapolis Issues Forum - A Civil City-focused Civic Discussion - Mn E-Democracy Post messages to: mailto:[email protected] Subscribe, Un-subscribe, etc. at: http://e-democracy.org/mpls
