Welcome to Bellingham, Arizona

In which the perils of a police state are only barely considered

In which the perils of a police state are only barely considered

By
• Topics:

In a recent article here, author Dick Conoboy of the Zonemaven champions the idea of rental licensing and inspections, ostensibly to make housing safer for renters. In response to my complaint that such regulations "promote the most pernicious kind of sneak-and-peak government intrusion into the privacy of peoples homes," Conoboy refers readers to his STOP! Rental Licensing Is NOT About Single Family Zoning.

In that piece, Conoboy vigorously asserts that the "current discussion about licensing rentals in Bellingham" is unrelated to "the issue of single family zoning" and the "so-called 'rule of three,'" in which no more than three persons unrelated by blood may live in a single family zone.

Well, well, well.

In another recent article at The Wonk Room, Andrea Nill shares some revealing insights into the recently approved and widely disparaged Arizona immigration bill that enables authorities to verify the legal status of virtually anyone they encounter, for almost any reason.

"Wonk Room recently obtained an email written by Kris Kobach, a lawyer at the Immigration Reform Law Institute — the group which credits itself with writing the bill — to Arizona state Sen. Russell Pierce (R), urging him to include language that will allow police to use city ordinance violations such as “cars on blocks in the yard” as an excuse to “initiate quieries...”

The email speaks for itself. Kobach recommends hinging enforcement also around "county or municipal ordinance" in order to "...allow police to use...rental codes (too many occupants of a rental accommodation) to initiate queries as well."

If you are already wondering whether you want code enforcers sneaking and peaking around your property, this ought to get you thinking about just how many official camel noses you want to invite under the flap of your private tent.

I'll stick to my guns on this one. It sounds like a very slippery slope to me. Once that police boot is in the door, what might follow is not always entirely up to us.

About Tip Johnson

Citizen Journalist and Editor • Member since Jan 11, 2008

Tip Johnson is a longtime citizen interest advocate with a record of public achievement projects for good government and the environment. A lifelong student of government, Tip served two terms [...]

Comments by Readers

Shane Roth

May 03, 2010

I?m assuming that the concern trolls in the ?rental industry? are trying to convince folks who are renting rooms in their private homes that those home owners are going to be subject to some sort of ?guv?munt? interference if the rental industry is suddenly regulated in Bellingham.

Tip Johnson can take this bait if he wants to. And so can any other NWcitizen. But Mr Johnson and the rest won?t be stumbling over the likes of me swallowing it.

The problem with this opposition to rental licensing on libertarian principle is that it ignores some rather mundane and practical facts of business licensing in general.

If you are running a business in Washington State… any business… you must obtain a business license from the State of Washington if you meet at least one of the following criteria:

*Your business grosses $12,000 or more per year
*You have employees or plans to hire employees within the next 90 days
*You are not running your operating business under your full legal name
*You are selling a product or providing a service that is taxable
*Your business is required to obtain any renewable or regulatory license with the Master License Service
(source: https://fortress.wa.gov/dol/mls/IMBAHome.aspx)

If you are oh-for-five on this list, you don?t need a business license of any kind.

So, if you rent a room in your house for less than $1000 per month…

And you are not retaining any employees to manage that tenant…

And the tenant makes out the rent checks to your legal name…

(in other words, if your friends refer to your ?tenant? as your ?roommate?...)

Then that?s three down and two to go.

Let?s take a closer look at Number Four

?Selling a product or providing a service that is taxable.?

If you only agree to rent to tenants for at least a month at a time, that rental income is not subject to B&O tax and you are oh-for-four.

If you are renting a room to someone for at least 30 consecutive days, this is considered non-transient lodging at the state level.

From the Washington State Department of Revenue website:

?An occupant remaining in continuous occupancy for 30 days or more is considered a non-transient upon the thirtieth day. An occupant who contracts in advance and does remain in continuous occupancy for the initial thirty days will be considered a non-transient from the start of the occupancy. Charges for non-transient lodging are exempt of tax as a rental of real estate.?

http://dor.wa.gov/content/doingbusiness/businesstypes/industry/lodging/default.aspx

So, unless you are running a little ?bed and breakfast? out of your single family residence, you are good to go.

Let?s look at Number Five.

?business is required to obtain any renewable or regulatory license with the Master License Service.?

(source: https://fortress.wa.gov/dol/mls/IMBAHome.aspx find link to the Master License Service at this site.)

The City of Blaine appears on this list. If you are renting a room in your house in Blaine you are supposed to file with the State Department of Revenue. That?s right. ?business-friendly? Blaine. Not ?anti-business? Bellingham. Go figure.

So as long as you aren?t trying to rent a room in your house in Blaine you are still good to go.

The Master License Service does not include any real estate rental, or lodging of any kind.

Here is the list of businesses that appear on the list:

*Bulk Fertilizer Distributor
*Egg handler/dealer
*Liquor license
*Lottery Retailer
*Nursery Retailer
*Pesticide Dealer
*Rental Car Registration
*Shopkeeper
*Tobacco Sales
*Weighing and Measuring Devices
*X-ray Facilities and Devices

(and for those NWcitizens who might assert that the ?guv?munt? can just declare someone a ?shopkeeper?, be advised that a shopkeeper?s license actually appears under the RCW for pharmaceuticals (RCW 18.64), so unless you are also selling your roommate Sudafed… or lottery tickets… or unfiltered Camels… you are still good to go.)

Remember, this is state law I?m referring to here. So unless Bellingham passes some law requiring all businesses to pay a city license fee to run any business at all (like Blaine does), or unless the State of Washington decided to require a renewable or regulatory license for all lodging, and revokes its tax exemption for non-transient lodging… you are still good to go.

So, the Zonemaven is on point. In terms of business licensing, the only members of the ?rental industry? that will be affected by a rental licensing and inspection program, are members of that industry who should already be licensed with the State anyway. If you are renting a room in your single family house then you will not be affected by this, as a simple matter of economic reality.

If you are grossing $1,000 a month or more in rental income, or are paying employees to manage your property, or are cashing rent checks as an LLC, or you are renting your room by the day or week, then you are a landlord.

If you are grossing less than $1,000 a month in rental income, and you are managing the property yourself, and your rent checks are made out to your legal name, and you are renting by the month, then you have a roommate.

And there is little credible claim of mistaking the two. (Unless you live in Blaine.)

It?s one thing to harbor a healthy suspicion of government, but allowing landlords to equate themselves to private property owners with roommates demonstrates a powerfully selective form of amnesia.

What happened to a healthy suspicion of landlords? They aren?t all Mr Roeper from Three?s Company, you know. Nor are they all Mr Furley, either.

Whether or not professional landlords should be subject to strict regulation is only an honest debate if the true landlords aren?t allowed to falsely equate themselves with folks who are renting out a room in an effort to help cover the mortgage payment on the only house they own.

I urge Tip Johnson and any other of the NWcitizens to temper that legendary libertarian zeal just enough to cast an equally jaundiced eye towards these fork-tongued landlords.

Protect the individual home-owners. The professional landlords can protect themselves.

Read More...

Dick Conoboy

May 04, 2010

Well, you got me on this one Tip.  I had no idea that I was the Sheriff Arpaio of Bellingham, although I do think that landlords ought to wear pink underwear.

Read More...
To comment, Log In or Register