You quote me as saying: "The only argument I've heard against it is privacy." This quotation is truncated and inaccurate. I said that this was the only argument I had heard against it, but that the concern was completely misplaced in light of the ruling by the Washington Supreme Court that a Pasco-style inspection program does not involve a government intrusion.
As it stands, your quotation suggests that I acknowledged privacy was a countervailing consideration to rental inspection, when in fact my point to the council was that the argument is a red herring.
Your paraphrasing of my remarks regarding enforcement of existing housing regulations is similarly misleading. Again, you cite my synopsis of the RHA's argument in the course of rebutting, without including the rebuttal itself-namely, that the existing complaint-based system has already proved a failure at enforcing existing regulations, which is why an inspection program is needed.
Once again, your incomplete characterization of my remarks makes it appear as if I was just acknowledging the RHA's arguments rather than refuting them.
By the way, the last time I checked, 475 was 11.875 percent of 4,000, not .036 percent. If the error was yours, you should correct it. If the error was Ms. Johnson's, you should have pointed it out. But it does not appear that you fact-checked her press release or interview statements at all before transcribing them in your article.
Ian B. Crosby
University District
[[In-content Ad]]