Any person renting or making available for rent to the public any dwelling unit shall secure a license registering each dwelling unit including a certification warranting that each such dwelling unit complies with the Uniform Housing Code as adopted by the City and does not present conditions that endanger or impair the health or safety of the tenants.... Issuance of the business license shall be contingent upon submission of the certification, inspection, as required by this title, payment of the fee provided above and compliance with Chapter 5.78 of this title.
[T]he City's application of the Ordinance is constitutionally invalid because it: (i) violates the constitutional protection from unreasonable searches and seizures set forth in the Fourth Amendment to the Constitution of the United States; (ii) is constitutionally vague, thereby depriving Plaintiffs of due process guaranteed by the Fourteenth Amendment to the U.S. Constitution; and (iii) mandates the payment of “fees” which constitute an illegal tax.
First, the plaintiff must have suffered an injury in fact—an invasion of a legally-protected interest which is (a) concrete and particularized and (b) actual or imminent, not conjectural or hypothetical. Second, there must be a causal connection between the injury and the conduct complained of—the injury must be fairly traceable to the challenged action of the defendant, and not the result of the independent action of some third party not before the court. Third, it must be likely, as opposed to merely speculative, that the injury will be redressed by a favorable decision.
Even if the code itself provided for a warrant, this does not itself imply that a statute is categorically sufficient to provide the authority of law necessary to satisfy Const. art. 1, § 7.... In this case, we examine the uniform codes because, prior to examining whether a particular statute may satisfy Const. art. 1, § 7, it is necessary to determine whether an applicable statute exists. Since we conclude that there is no such statute, we do not consider whether a specific authorizing statute would otherwise pass constitutional muster.
(1) The tenant shall not unreasonably withhold consent to the landlord to enter into the dwelling unit in order to inspect the premises, make necessary or agreed repairs, alterations, or improvements, supply necessary or agreed services.... (4) The landlord has no other right of access except by court order, arbitrator or by consent of the tenant. (5) A landlord or tenant who continues to violate this section after being served with one written notification alleging in good faith violations of this section ... shall be liable for up to one hundred dollars for each violation after receipt of the notice.
The landlord will at all times during the tenancy keep the premises fit for human habitation, and shall in particular: (1) Maintain the premises to substantially comply with any applicable code, statute, ordinance, or regulation governing their maintenance or operation, which the legislative body enacting the applicable code, statute, ordinance or regulation could enforce as to the premises rented if such condition substantially endangers or impairs the health or safety of the tenant.
(2)(a) If a landlord fails to fulfill any substantial obligation imposed by RCW 59.18.060 that substantially endangers or impairs the health or safety of a tenant ... the tenant shall give notice in writing to the landlord ... (b) If after receipt of the notice described in (a) ... the landlord fails to remedy the condition ... the tenant may request that the local government provide for an inspection of the premises ...
End of Document | © 2024 Thomson Reuters. No claim to original U.S. Government Works. |