Sign In | Create an Account | Welcome, . My Account | Logout | Subscribe | Submit News | Newspaper contacts | All Access E-Edition | Home RSS
 
 
 

Unconstitutional

June 20, 2013

I am a local landlord who owns several rental properties in the Williamsport area. Mayor Campana has taken an interest in rental properties throughout our city....

« Back to Article

 
 
sort: oldest | newest

Comments

(16)

CMReeder

Jun-20-13 7:47 AM

It is public records.

1 Agrees | 3 Disagrees | Report Abuse »

spike2

Jun-20-13 8:27 AM

Why is it public record? What is the need to know who is renting at any given time?

7 Agrees | 0 Disagrees | Report Abuse »

CMReeder

Jun-20-13 9:05 AM

Addresses are public records and people who reside there. If you have a police record that too is public records. All of that information is out there.

0 Agrees | 3 Disagrees | Report Abuse »

djzlucky

Jun-20-13 9:25 AM

CMReeder -- Actually a person's address isn't public record unless and until they themselves make it public (utility bill, bank account, arrest record,etc.)It's absolutely possible to live "off the radar" if one tries hard enough.

Even if it were public record, wouldn't that then negate the need for a city-wide database? Why pay for the software and for someone to constantly update it if a simple public records search will work?

2 Agrees | 0 Disagrees | Report Abuse »

wwhickok

Jun-20-13 9:51 AM

Great Letter, I'm a rentor and it's actually really refreshing to hear a landlord say what many rentors have been thinking. The ONLY logical explanation is, and I spin this off the personal vibe I wrongly portrayed yesterday, to as Francine suggested, profile citizens.

Not every 'ex-con' is a bad person, but rather someone who made a stupid mistake. Doesn't mean they'll always continue to do so. Not every citizen is even an ex-con/current con, at all. Regardless of Race (and yes I believe there will be racial profiling), regardless of neighborhood, good people exist in this city. Within certain neighborhoods, "groups", backgrounds, etc I believe there would wrongly be stereotyping and assumptions made in regards to 'cracking down on crime'. There are many potential issues with this whole "Public Records" discussion as Reeder called it. There is no logical reason that it is a necessary tool. There are plenty of morally and constitutionally wrong reasons

6 Agrees | 0 Disagrees | Report Abuse »

wwhickok

Jun-20-13 9:52 AM

-continued-

that support the reality that it should not be implemented.

3 Agrees | 0 Disagrees | Report Abuse »

Tedeaux

Jun-20-13 10:25 AM

Could it be that the mayor wants to make sure that the tenants, if they are employed are paying their local income taxes by collecting their names and comparing them to who is already paying the local income tax?

0 Agrees | 2 Disagrees | Report Abuse »

keith2002lhu

Jun-20-13 11:26 AM

Ms. Santalucia never indicated WHY she thinks that is unconstitutional. Does she even know who is in her rental properties? Does she have wanted fugitives renting from her perhaps? Or drug dealers?

1 Agrees | 4 Disagrees | Report Abuse »

wwhickok

Jun-20-13 11:42 AM

Keith, perhaps she felt it wasn't her right or responsibility to share the addresses and information with you about who lives in her rental properties.

That attitude, that's exactly what I'm talking about. If someone isn't 'public' it's automatically assumed they're a bad person?

6 Agrees | 0 Disagrees | Report Abuse »

keith2002lhu

Jun-20-13 11:44 AM

perhaps she felt it wasn't her right or responsibility to share the addresses and information with you about who lives in her rental properties.

I get that, but can anyone tell me where the "UNCONSTITUTIONAL" part comes in?

1 Agrees | 1 Disagrees | Report Abuse »

rmiller

Jun-20-13 3:43 PM

Great Letter and holds more weight if it is a landlord, than a tenant! Thanks for the letter!

4 Agrees | 0 Disagrees | Report Abuse »

JerryfromRI

Jun-20-13 7:17 PM

The relationship between the renter and the rentee is a private one.

The people do NOT report to the government, CERTAINLY NOT to the codes officer.

There isn't even any need for what the Mayor proposes. It's a political stunt and a classic example of government overreach.

PS: The legal fees the city's tax payers will expend defending itself from the ABSOLUTELY certain challenges will be enormous.

7 Agrees | 0 Disagrees | Report Abuse »

keith2002lhu

Jun-20-13 10:36 PM

So noone can find where this is unconstitutional? I'm not talking about more work for the landlords, but it being "UNCONSTITUTIONAL". What amendment covers the right to privacy?

1 Agrees | 0 Disagrees | Report Abuse »

wwhickok

Jun-21-13 6:29 AM

Keith, I get what you're saying, I think "Unconstitutional" was a bad choice of words. Because reality is, this has nothing to do with the Constitution unless you're going to argue it somehow infringes on the Pursuit of Happiness. I think this is more of a "Civil Rights" violation, as Francine suggested. An extreme invasion of privacy.

0 Agrees | 0 Disagrees | Report Abuse »

Shulski

Jun-23-13 10:30 AM

If it's unconstitutional, it would probably fall under the Fourth Amendment's guarantee against "unreasonable search and seizure". That's my best guesstimation. Speculation.

0 Agrees | 0 Disagrees | Report Abuse »

streetmachine

Apr-20-14 9:24 AM

4th amendment is violated we all need to stick together about this goverment intrusion

0 Agrees | 0 Disagrees | Report Abuse »

Showing 16 of 16 comments
 
 

Post a Comment

You must first login before you can comment.

*Your email address:
*Password:
Remember my email address.
or
 
 
 

 

I am looking for:
in:
News, Blogs & Events Web