Charging owners of rental housing in Lewiston for each apartment, just to fund code enforcement, would be a very discriminating charge. Isn’t the code enforcement division there for all the people of Lewiston? Why should owners and occupants of rental housing have to pay more toward that department — more than owner-occupied housing?

At a recent meeting of a new housing committee, an additional fee of $36 was mentioned, which would add $3 per month to each tenant’s rent. Why should tenants have to shoulder this extra burden? Code enforcement must be applied uniformly to all properties in the city, including all housing and all businesses.

All codes should be applied equally to all, with no discrimination applied to rental units only. Is not the child in an owner-occupied home entitled to the same protection from lead paint as the child in rental housing?

What about other safety codes, such as the requirement for GFI electrical outlets near water sources and outside? Or the height of protective railings on porches? Or required electrical upgrades, such as circuit breakers instead of plug fuses? Or carbon monoxide and smoke detectors, etc?

There are many codes for the protection of occupants of any housing. Why discriminate against those who choose to live in multi-unit housing?

Code enforcement, like all city functions, should be shared equally by all residents of the city. As currently proposed, the new fee is highly discriminatory to all who live in multi-housing.

Raymond Frechette, Lewiston

Only subscribers are eligible to post comments. Please subscribe or login first for digital access. Here’s why.

Use the form below to reset your password. When you've submitted your account email, we will send an email with a reset code.

filed under: