Rental registration ordinance

Said the rental inspection ordinance is still on the books despite claims it's dead, and asked for a formal repeal vote on the next agenda.

The local real estate broker asked the council to pass an ordinance repealing Chapter 5.58, saying its consequences outweigh its purpose.

Speaking as a tenant, said tabling fees is not repealing the ordinance and tenants deserve a formal answer.

A 30-year property owner asked for formal repeal so his long-term tenants can have peace of mind.

Criticized the process that passed the ordinance and asked the council to formally repeal it, warning the fee schedule could return.

Said neither renters nor landlords support the ordinance and compliance costs would force rents higher.

Accused the council of trampling rights; her comments turned heated and the mayor cut her off after remarks about a pellet gun.

Thanked the council for tabling fees but said the ordinance must be repealed, promising to keep returning until it is.

A long-term tenant on her fourth appearance asked for formal repeal, saying tenants' homes and privacy matter.

Asked for repeal of Chapter 5.58 on the next agenda and also urged removal of the Flock license plate readers.

Argued the ordinance remains fully in effect despite the tabled fees, and that agendizing repeal is the council's true test.

Respectfully asked the council to repeal the rental ordinance, calling it bad for tenants, landlords and the city, and warned it will drive up rents.

A 61-year-old tenant said the state already inspects her home twice a year and demanded to know why residents had no voice before the ordinance passed, describing her own history of homelessness.

Representing the Property Rights Association of the Desert, argued the ordinance violates the Fourth Amendment under Camara v. Municipal Court and said the $100 fees will force responsible landlords to raise rents.

Said the city pushed the ordinance through over a holiday weekend without reaching out, and asked the council to repeal it and go back to the drawing board with community input.

Called the ordinance an unconstitutional overreach violating Fourth and Fifth Amendment protections, and asked the council to repeal it.

First-time commenter and renter said unwarranted inspections of his home violate the Fourth Amendment and threatened a class action lawsuit over the ordinance.

A property manager with the Property Rights Association said the ordinance language is dangerously ambiguous, asked why stakeholders were excluded for a decade, and asked the council to repeal it and start over.

A 30-year property owner said many of his tenants already get inspected through county assistance programs, and worried the ordinance will make it harder to house low-income renters; asked for repeal.

Described door-knocking tenants and finding panic and confusion, including among Spanish-speaking renters, and urged the council to think about how the ordinance is landing with residents.

Tenant of ten years asked why renters are singled out when homeowners aren't inspected, and said the city should target the problem properties instead of burdening every renter.

Questioned code enforcement staffing credentials and said the ordinance was rushed over a July 4th weekend without meeting with property owners or tenants.

Gave a constitutional history lesson against administrative warrants for home entry, invoking the Fourth Amendment and writs of assistance, and asked the city to require judicial warrants based on probable cause.

A lifelong resident and property manager asked how owners will be educated, what happens to tenants displaced by failed inspections, whether paperwork issues become violations, and how fees will cover program costs.

A ten-year renter asked the city to respect tenants' privacy and quiet enjoyment and suggested door-knocking to ask tenants about problems instead of universal inspections.

A disabled renter on fixed income said the ordinance would raise her rent and make her homeless, refused city entry to her home, and was warned by the mayor after adding an off-color remark.

A seven-year tenant and mother of a disabled son said she'll refuse entry to her home, cited Fourth Amendment concerns, and said she'd consider moving out of Desert Hot Springs if it passes.

Supported protecting tenants but urged the council to pull the ordinance from consent, proposing amendments requiring warrants before entry, an independent hearing officer for appeals, and ten days' notice before seeking an inspection warrant.

A returning resident of five days said the ordinance penalizes responsible owners and tenants, raises costs that will be passed to renters, and invades privacy with rolling five-year inspections.

Read a constitutional argument citing the Fourth Amendment, Camara v. Municipal Court, and the city's own municipal code, saying warrantless home inspections would be unconstitutional.

A realtor since 1999 called the ordinance unconstitutional overreach and said it treats property owners as a cash cow, urging rejection.

A Yucca Drive resident said the issue comes down to money and would rather see funds spent on police officers and paving streets than more code enforcement.

A local property manager raised practical problems: tenants refusing entry, hoarding and mental-health cases, and lack of a relocation assistance plan for displaced tenants.

A tenant and disabled resident worried about invasive inspections of problem-free homes and what happens if violations trigger displacement.

A real estate professional asked for a continuance, saying the ordinance would harm investment opportunities and raise civil-rights concerns.

Drew on his Santa Ana rental task force experience, recommending public outreach, education for small owners, and tenant protections rather than heavy-handed enforcement.

A property manager said the ordinance would raise rents, invade tenant privacy, and could displace long-term tenants who like their older apartments.

Representing the city's largest landowner and taxpayer, asked for a continuance so legal counsel can review the ordinance's constitutionality.