I was surprised to see resistance to the idea of a tenant and landlord self-certifying the “safety checklist” being proposed for dwellings in Waterville (“Waterville City Council delays vote on housing rental registration ordinance,” Jan. 17). I’m looking it over and finding trouble identifying what code enforcement would need to access my private residence for.
My landlord and I can verify smoke detectors work. Other municipalities, including the Lewiston ordinance this ordinance is modeled after, allow for this. I’m sure the housing committee has strong data on why tenants and landlords aren’t smart enough to do this themselves.
Surge protectors don’t count as extension cords, right? Why my landlord’s permit to rent resides on my choice of powering my TV is lost on me; surely the housing committee knows that punishing landlords for tenant violations is capricious. I’m also not sure why I’m not smart enough to understand the risks of extension cords and agree to restrict their use.
The space heater also strikes me as an opportunity for tenant education, not a punitive measure against the landlord. If my upstairs neighbor stubbornly refuses to follow the law and keeps her space heater plugged in all night next to her bed, why am I the one facing potential eviction if my landlord loses their license? The tenant is the problem, but the landlord and other tenants are the ones being punished. That definitely doesn’t seem fair.
Someone at the last meeting said that asking us to give up our private residences to unwarranted searches by code enforcement makes us second-class citizens. Our homes are sacred. They should be breached only in the most extreme of circumstances.
Nothing in this safety list requires code enforcement to enter my home. Nothing in this list is going to dramatically improve the housing stock in Waterville. I’ve yet to see the data that suggests otherwise.
Rien Finch
Waterville
Send questions/comments to the editors.
