She handed a preprinted post-it from atop a post-it tablet, the woman saying it had a phone number.
I asked if it had an email, she replied, "I don't even remember my email. I prefer to deal by phone." I replied, "My sister prefers email, she's the homeowner, you're only the government, and that's what the homeowner prefers."
It was not discourteous. But it certainly was officious.
She asked if I was renting. Tenants have right of possession and use and can authorize entry into a landlord's building, but also can refuse it, absent a warrant.
She left a card with the preprinted notice.
It had her email address on it.
Pam Omdahl, Appraiser
pam.omdahl@co.anoka.mn.us
I have no clue what was so tricky about that to have her say she "did not remember" her county business email address.
I think she was flat out fibbing about that.
Badge heavy, with only a laminated card and no sidearm or uniform.
But badge heavy.
Anyway, she walked to the neighbors' home.
---------------
My instincts, knowing what I know of the mischief that can arise from administrative searches inside a home; was to suggest she get a search warrant. However, I am not the homeowner.
Any reader thoughts? Do you like the thought of a government official showing up wanting immediate access to the inside of your home? This was not a cop, but especially if it was, how would you feel and react?
Responsive and civil reader comments will be published, but all comments are moderated.
---------------
WORTH NOTING: Remember, it is your home. If you want to say "No," then you have every right in the nation, state, and county to do so. If you feel it best to set in advance a time for a visit, ditto. Officials denied entry upon request for an administrative purpose can obtain a judicial warrant, and compel entry.
If you don't, for any reason whatsoever, want a government official in your home upon a random request without prior notice, unless and until you might be more willing to schedule something, (for whatever reason fair or foul), for instance if you'd want to straightenup up or want to adjust and rearrange things, etc., (clean ashtrays, whatever) -- It is your home, you are the homeowner and the official is only the government.
Remember that. It is important, as to what "living in a free country" should entail..
_________UPDATE________
I might need reader help on this, but my best recollection is that before he held any public office, Matt Look, I was told, had a kind of dispute with City of Anoka officials, or was rumored to have had one, over a tenant's refusal of administrative entry; where the official then tracked Look down and wanted him to authorize entry.
That effort to circumvent the tenant's rights could have drawn Look into an awkward situation, but my understanding of the story is he refused, saying the tenant had the right of possession and right to refuse entry.
BOTTOM LINE: Tenants have possessory rights, including right to exclude. Officials should not try to circumvent that in ways that could compromise landlords. Nothing of that kind happened today, with Ms. Omdahl. It was fully proper of her to ask if I was renting the home, when she asked that.
Tenants, think this over. Even with the rights as they are, isn't it best to say, "I would want to talk to the landlord first, I don't own the place," as to keeping a best cordial relationship between landlord and tenant and assuring notice among rental contract parties before either thinks to allow an official access inside a home?
Again, remember, a flat outright refusal of entry, as opposed to an owner's wanting to arrange a date and time reasonable to official and home owner-occupant, can result in issuance of a judicial warrant compelling entry, at the time it is served on the homeowner. An administrative official forced to attain a warrant entry also can request a law enforcement presence, if circumstances leading up to that stage indicated a reasonable likelihood of a breach of the peace ensuing.
So, "Get a warrant," as a response has its downside. Arranging things to fit homeowner convenience, at some future date-time during normal business hours, is the sensible thing to pursue. And it's not unreasonable to ask, "Call me when you are on your way." Officials can be expected to carry cell phones when away from the desk, and should be fully willing to extend such a reasonable courtesy.
_____________FURTHER UPDATE___________
I want to be perfectly clear. Nothing in the encounter was discourteous, on either side.
Other than the email thing, preferring having the equivalent of a "paper trail," I cannot reasonably object to an officious demeanor, from a public employee. It's to be expected as often as not.
Also the county has a legitimate interest in having an employee tasked with assessment review being able to complete the tasking at the lowest cost to the county. There is nothing unreasonable to that.
However, to a homeowner, the concept of PRIOR NOTICE and right to schedule something such as a stranger gaining access to the inside of a home in a non-emergency situation, should preempt.
That is largely how the situation unfolded. There was not fault or wrongful conduct on either side. There was merely a resulting understanding that the homeowner and county needed to set up something based on prior notice and convenient scheduling; not at the convenience of the official alone; but on some mutually convenient and reasonable basis. It is now between my sister and this person, who left a phone number and email address, to work things out.
Finally, given how the real estate market has tanked so badly, being reassessed in every instance should be favorable to the homeowner, in any honest reassessment. Property values are not what they were. Assessment rolls should reflect that.
If, and this is speculative, but if the county is indirectly via staff initiative trying to increase revenue levels by some blanket effort to kite upward property assessment numbers, then it is entirely wrong and improper and elected officials should be informed and should intervene.
Ratcheting up taxation income back-handedly only breeds disrespect (if not contempt) for government, and should not happen -- while being dealt with properly and severely, if it does.
_______________FURTHER UPDATE______________
Be warned.
Expanding on the thoughts I put into a comment, here is a scan of the printed form post-it, (measuring 4" x 6", black on yellow - despite appearing brown on yellow, from scanning).
Click it. Read that fine print
That rankles. The gist of it is:
If you deny us entry, it is license to hose you.
Last paragraph, we shift the burden, failure to hear from you, that is license to hose you.
Breathing air and presumbably having a heart valuing your home and its privacy, is license to hose you.
BOTTOM LINE: Cower and comply. Or expect to get hosed.
The wording differs in detail, not actually using the word "hosed," but the gist of the message, clearly suggestive of an intent to hose, is abundantly clear. What else would you suggest, "... prepare a subjective appraisal based on assumptions ..." mean, besides license to hose? The bureaucrats even decline to write "... reasonable subjective appraisal ..." because that appears to not be their intent.
They appear disposed to prefer to have you tell them to take a hike. They can retaliate. They can use that as excuse to wrongly pack the coffers, while never wanting to leave an email trail.
So -- when was this ingenious nasty overreaching little hummer of a form conceived, who authored it, and what were channels of approval next levels up, etc: i.e., what's the entire relevant history of this little hummer, as to intent, concept and the chosen wording?
More importantly - What input, formal or informal, came from elected board members, and who and when, over proceeding this way - with this form and with it being, in essence, a license to hose unless you want bureaucrats pouring around the inside of your home, by surprise and stealth, unannounced in advance as would be the proper thing to do.
NOBODY WANTS THAT.
THE BUREAUCRATS THEMSELVES, WOULD NOT WANT IT, FOR THEIR HOMES.
go figure
__________________FURTHER UPDATE_________________
More questions: How many of these forms were printed, and when? Who were they issued to?
The norm, with official forms, is to have a small print footer, with some form ID, and an update date, for usage tracking inside an agency. Not done here? Why not, it's the norm?
There are a host of things smelling off, not ripe, about this effort and agenda. If it's "PAM" alone, as the form is printed, my suggestion is that preservation of county integrity might best be done by some boss telling Pam to clean out her desk and don't let the doorknob hit you ...
Unless, PAM as the form says, is only one of several underlings, tasked by another.
Either way, the entire protocol and details seem suspect. And the genesis of the thing is probably that the politicians facing an electorate regularly want to hide the reality, and play a shell game, instead of raising across the board the assessment rate to make up for the legislature pulling the local assistance rug out from under local government.
Absent full disclosure, I blame the politicians first, the bureaucrats second. That's usually a sound attitude; you can vote the rascals out when the rascals are the politicians. So, since that's the single way your vote reaches, the politicians, that's how you should presume rascalness of the worse kind exists. A fair and HONEST adjustment of the tax rate would not cause me distress, the HONESTY of it would control. But this, ...