I’m a wanted woman, folks – there might be a warrant out there with my name on it.My offense was forgetting to tell the city of Sacramento that they have permission to inspect my house. Because of that, they gave me a warrant that says they can go through my property.Apparently, the city thinks that I’m in imminent danger because I live in a rental home. Now I must give them yearly access to where I live, under their Rental Housing Inspection Program.Did I mention before that I just moved into my new apartment in November? Shouldn’t inspecting an empty unit before renting it out be sufficient?This program is either just another perfect example of a “nanny state” trying way too hard to protect its citizens, or the city lining its coffers. My inner cynic is inclined to lean toward the latter.”We’ve created a program that assumes everyone is a bad actor,” said Cory Koehler, senior deputy director for the Rental Housing Association of Sacramento Valley.Landlords must pay $28 per unit annually to support this program for its first five years. They also pay any fines for code violations or re-inspection fees.This program does not affect private homeowners, who would probably be able to easily and successfully sue the city for invasion of privacy. But somehow the city has been trampling through renters’ homes for several years. Professional property managers will do a pre-move-in inspection to make sure everything is alright, Koehler said.One would think, between that and another law allowing tenants the option to a pre-move-out inspection, there would be plenty of laws governing the safety and condition of rental units.Shouldn’t a renter’s common sense dictate whether a city inspection is even necessary? “If the renter declines the inspection there is a provision,” Koehler said. “They can get an administrative warrant and go in anyway.”Koehler said that the rental housing industry is one of the most regulated around. The program costs renters and the industry over $2 million more, because some renters just have to ruin the home they’re paying for.”The professional owners are subsidizing a program for the bad owners,” Koehler said. “That’s the fundamental problem with this program.”Roy O’Connor, operations director for the city code enforcement department, said the program is there to benefit the tenants because, unlike homeowners, they do not have total control of their property.”If they endanger themselves, then that’s their doing,” O’Connor said. “The owner is running a business when they’re renting out to tenants and have an obligation to keep it safe.”Is it necessary for all renters to give up their right to privacy at the expense of picking out the bad apples?”I think (the city’s) point is if you’re a homeowner maybe you take better care of your property,” Koehler said. “I could see where a resident has a legit argument to say, “I’m being treated differently than someone who owns their own home.'”Just because I can’t afford to own a home yet does not mean I have given up my right to not have strangers come inside the one that I rent now.We may not own our homes, but we should still have for the right to peace, safety and – oh yeah, privacy.

Julia Baum can be reached at [email protected]