-Obviously, the city attorney doesn't think renters have the same constitutional rights as non-renters.
The city attorney argues that the warrant is irrelevant, despite the fact that the city went to the trouble of adding it during the November 2011 ordinance update in order to make the ordinance "arguably" constitutional, and it is, in fact, the city's only specific remedy if the tenant says no to inspection. The city wants to have it both ways: it wants to have a constitutional ordinance, but then ignores the ordinance in carrying out its inspections.
-For some reason, to clarify the definition of "make the property available," the city attorney goes on and on about the conditions the inspectors look for at every rental property.
The city attorney keeps blaming the landlord for not walking across the street to her rental after she scheduled an inspection within the prescribed time frame. (Her tenant was aware of the scheduled inspection and chose not to let the inspector inside HIS HOME.) If "making the property available" means for the landlord to be at present at the rental, why doesn't the city attorney say so in the ordinance to be absolutely clear? They might as well add "In case of the occupant's refusal, the landlord SHALL VIOLATE THE TENANT'S CONSTITUTIONAL RIGHT AND FORCE ENTRY BY THE CITY INSPECTOR into the occupant's home."
BTW, most of us landlords don't live across from our rentals, so we're off the hook, right?
-The city attorney also argues that the convicted landlord needed to produce her lease to prove that that she couldn't require her tenant to allow the inspection. Nothing in any lease overrides the US Constitution, which gives tenants the right to reject inspection. Nevertheless, the leases some of us use do not allow entry into our rentals by government or any inspectors.