require a higher standard of certainty. Newstrom, 371 N.W.2d at 528. The term “clean and sanitary” is so vague and discretionary in its application to Reha’s conduct that it violates minimum standards of due process. See e.g., Soko-lov v. Incorporated Village of Freeport, 82 Misc.2d 1087, 372 N.Y.S.2d 304, 307 (1975) (language “clean, safe, in sanitary condition, in repair” in village housing code is unconstitutionally vague). “Clean and “sanitary” is not defined in the housing chapter; it is not a term of art with established meanings; and it has “no settled usage or tradition of interpretation in law.” See Gentile v. State Bar of Nevada, — U.S. —, 111 S.Ct. 2720, 115 L.Ed.2d 888 (1991) (finding that “general” and “elaboration” are vague); see also Newstrom, 371 N.W.2d at 528 (<HOLDING>). The structure of the housing chapter suggests
holding that essentially equivalent is unconstitutionally vague holding that attorney disciplinary rule was unconstitutionally vague as applied holding that exceptional depravity is unconstitutionally vague holding that  2320 as a whole is not unconstitutionally vague holding factor b is not unconstitutionally vague