After reading a letter submitted by K. Andrea Briarmoon to the Gazette about the new nuisance law proposed in Janesville, I thought, here she goes again. Now what could be wrong? But, after reading several other letters pro and con to the ordinance, its beginning to look once again that she (Briarmoon) and others have raised some good points. I have not been able to get my hands on the proposed city ordinance, but if at least one other letter writer is correct with the quote,” forfeiture of the property to the city,” people should be outraged and shut this thing down. There is no question that Janesville needs better laws to crackdown on nuisance and illegal activity perpetrated by certain
JG excerpt:This is laughable. No doubt this is a serious issue, but the person who comes up with the formula to stop odd and/or criminal behavior of others would put Einstein and Freud to shame. They would control the planet.
Police would notify the owner if four or more enforcement actions – either arrests or written warnings – occur at a property or apartment unit within a 12-month period. The owner must meet with police within five days to discuss the problems and within another 10 days submit a plan to eliminate the behavior.
In seriousness at least, after the four warnings, it’s the police who should be the ones to improvise a plan and submit it to the owner for cooperation. They are the ones with an insight to the problem, they are the enforcers. Not to say that all landlords are created equal either, however they must abide by Federal and state anti-discriminatory housing laws.
But perhaps the worst part of this ordinance is the idea that they would confiscate the property. At first I thought it was typical of Ms. Briarmoon accusing the city of trying to stretch 194 complaints on a tenant into a conspiracy to acquire properties. But it turns out at least, she’s half-right. Simply put, they must drop ”forfeiture of property” from the ordinance, in fact, drop property or location wordings and definitions entirely. A strong and comprehensive nuisance law must target the guilty individual(s) with steep fines, jail or other measures, not the property of where it occurs, private, public or otherwise.
"The city does not earn the property because the police are unable to keep the peace."
9 comments:
It all depends on where the problem resides. If its a tenant now and then the problem might reside with the renter. But all to often its the property owners that breed anti-social behavior and slum like neighborhoods.
Just ridding the house of a particular renter will do not good the problem resides with the property owner.
I don't let the property owners off the hook entirely. If they are also suspected of illegal activity or repeated nuisances, and found guilty by a jury of their peers, they too, must be "confiscated." If the owner needs to sell the property to pay the fines, so be it. The city does not earn the property because the police are unable to keep the peace.
I would have to agree that the property usually harbors nusainces. Not always but most of the time.
Parks harbor nuisances too. So do some taverns and schools. Its the harbors fault I say.
I guess it all comes down to if slums are born or made. If there are four violations that is property owner negligence pure and simple. There are what I'd call a slum lord.
The point is by the ordinance they have committed a crime. They have created an environment that fosters, encourages, and nurtures criminal activity. Mind you this is not about a one time occurrence but the landlord nurturing a culture of crime.
Your logic of punishing the nuisance rather than the property misses the point entirely. It is rather difficult to punish the nuisance when the property owner enables such behavior.
This law is particularly important in cleaning up crack houses or whole complexes that breed criminal activity. The fact is good landlords turn these communities around whereas bad ones drag them into the sewer.
Here is a related piece in Madison.
http://www.madison.com/wsj/mad/top/index.php?ntid=110591#
www.madison.com
Vyborg, thanks for the link.
I think we have to separate felonies such as crack houses and serial killers from nuisance complaints. There is a difference.
IF the homeowner/landlord is complicit in the nuisance, sure, they are part of the problem. The structure that housed the people who received 194 complaints does not look like a slum, the owner has been keeping it up. We do need a strong nuisance law - but this one, in my opinion, is poorly written. Vyborg, you know this nuisance law is about loud noises like music, loose animals, intimidation, and other bad behavior. It's not about building code violations.
Yes, I would assume it is somewhat similar to Madison's abatement program. That is why the particular building is being evacuated. The landlord was reacting to abatement where the building would be confiscated and sold.
Now, I would agree things like loud music, animals would be a stretch, but certainly this is not the motivation for the law. What are some typical examples that motivate the law?
Janesville passed the ordinance Monday evening, it is now on the books. When law-abiding citizens hear about these nuisance laws without reading the entire ordinance, I think most automatically lean to a "yes" vote, I did. But after some clarification of what the city proposed, it turns out to be grossly unjust. The Janesville law is not about building violations or serious crimes and felonies. I am looking for the ordinance to be posted on the web.
Post a Comment