[Peace-discuss] Urbana's WQ seeking ethnic cleansing and more
power over property owners.
John W.
jbw292002 at gmail.com
Wed Nov 12 20:21:59 CST 2008
On Wed, Nov 12, 2008 at 6:59 PM, C. G. Estabrook <galliher at uiuc.edu> wrote:
Do you really *favor* the Peoples' Republic of Urbana proceeding against
> people who might engage in "mob action"? And who do think they will be?
Jenifer didn't say that the ordinance couldn't use some fine tuning, Carl,
and your point is well taken. She merely suggested that the ordinance is
not per se racist/classist. Or so I interpret her comment(s).
That said, some of the crimes listed below seem less objectionable to me
than others, and I'd be hard-pressed to define some of them in specific
enough terms to be meaningful.
One of the nuisance crimes listed is "public indecency". I'm reminded of a
former male acquaintance who suddenly, after years of seemingly normal
living, suddenly began exposing himself publicly. He was arrested several
times, and he ultimately lost his job, his wife, and his son, whereupon he
ended up living with his elderly mother. On occasion he would be reported
sitting stark naked on his mother's front porch, or wandering in the
neighborhood. He never harmed a soul, and he obviously had a mental problem
for which there was apparently no effective treatment. Somehow
criminalizing his behavior didn't (and doesn't) seem to be the proper
answer, and fining his elderly mother the property owner would seem to be
only adding insult to injury.
On the other hand, pretty much any of us living next door to a drug house, a
brothel, a gaming establishment, and/or a house where gang members with
weapons traffic on a regular basis, would probably want something done about
it. There are currently civil nuisance statutes in Illinois state law,
whereby you can sue the tenant or owner of a property where certain defined
nuisances are taking place. But the process is cumbersome, the civil suit
must be brought by an affected neighbor/community member (which is obviously
dangerous, or potentially so), and few are aware of the statutes.
I don't know what the precisely proper balance is between upholding civil
liberties and maintaining a decent, safe community. I don't think anyone
does. I do know that the City of Urbana is wrestling with a thorny and more
or less universal dilemma, and impugning the motives of the mayor in such a
complex situation seems to generate rather more heat than light.
John
> Jenifer Cartwright wrote:
> It goes w/o saying that bad laws should be repealed and false charges
>> should be fought! But surely y're not suggesting e g opposing speed limits
>> because a racist cop threw MLK in jail for "speeding?"
>> --Jenifer
>>
>> --- On *Wed, 11/12/08, C. G. Estabrook /<galliher at uiuc.edu>/* wrote:
>>
>> From: C. G. Estabrook <galliher at uiuc.edu>
>> Subject: Re: [Peace-discuss] Urbana's WQ seeking ethnic cleansing
>> and more power over property owners.
>> To: jencart13 at yahoo.com
>> Cc: "'E. Wayne Johnson'" <ewj at pigs.ag>, "'Peace-discuss'"
>> <peace-discuss at anti-war.net>, ronpaul-305 at meetup.com, "LAURIE
>> SOLOMON" <LAURIE at ADVANCENET.NET>
>> Date: Wednesday, November 12, 2008, 5:18 PM
>>
>> Civil rights demonstrators as well as anti-war demonstrators have
>> frequently
>> been arrested on charges of "mob action."
>>
>> An anti-war anti-racist effort should surely oppose this bit of PC
>> repression.
>>
>> --CGE
>>
>> Jenifer Cartwright wrote:
>> > Whoa, Guys, news flash: ALL economic classes and ALL ethnic groups
>> appreciate
>> > living in quiet safe neighborhoods that are free from "nuisance
>> activities,
>> > among them mob action, assault, battery, unlawful use of weapons,
>> > prostitution, sexual assault, public indecency, illegal gambling,
>> arson
>> and
>> > drug-related crimes." I can't believe you think that ANYONE --
>> regardless of
>> > race or economic status -- wants to- or should be expected to put up
>> w/
>> these
>> > things!! How can you possibly conclude that this is something wanted
>> by/meant
>> > for "rich white folks," implying that "poor black
>> folks" -- or ANY folks --
>> > don't care one way or another about these things!?? Wow, this seems
>> like a
>> > snobbish -- and racist -- reaction to me!! --Jenifer
>> > > > --- On *Wed, 11/12/08, LAURIE SOLOMON /<
>> LAURIE at ADVANCENET.NET>/*
>> wrote:
>> > > From: LAURIE SOLOMON <LAURIE at ADVANCENET.NET> Subject: RE:
>> [Peace-discuss]
>> > Urbana's WQ seeking ethnic cleansing and more power over property
>> owners. To:
>> > "'E. Wayne Johnson'" <ewj at pigs.ag>,
>> "'Peace-discuss'" <peace-discuss at anti-war.net>,
>> ronpaul-305 at meetup..com Date: Wednesday,
>> > November 12, 2008, 11:31 AM
>> > > Ø Property "owners" should take note that all of their
>> property is lent to
>> > them by the kind permission of the Queen
>> > > > > And the Queen is being lent to you by permission of
>> the good voters of
>> > Urbana. J
>> > > > > *From:* peace-discuss-bounces at lists.chambana.net
>> [mailto:peace-discuss-bounces at lists.chambana.net] *On Behalf Of *E.
>> Wayne
>> > Johnson *Sent:* Wednesday, November 12, 2008 9:20 AM *To:*
>> Peace-discuss;
>> > ronpaul-305 at meetup.com *Subject:* [Peace-discuss] Urbana's WQ
>> seeking
>> ethnic
>> > cleansing and more power over property owners.
>> > > > > Consider the article below...
>> > > I suggest that Prussing just cut directly to the chase and say
>> that she
>> wants
>> > to create an queendom in Urbana that is exclusively for wealthy white
>> folks
>> > except that a few others needed for domestic servants are welcome
>> provided
>> that they meet her standards. All the riff-raff should be summarily
>> kicked
>> > out onto the streets. Property "owners" should take note that
>> all of their
>> > property is lent to them by the kind permission of the Queen, and
>> serious
>> consequences shall befall all who respect her not.
>> > > > > > > Urbana considering ordinance for repeat
>> nuisance offenders
>> > > > By Mike Monson
>> > > > Wednesday November 12, 2008
>> > > URBANA – The city administration wants broad power to crack down
>> on
>> problem
>> > properties where criminal activities occur twice or more within a
>> six-month
>> > period.
>> > > City aldermen on Monday discussed a proposed "criminal nuisance
>> property"
>> > ordinance, but, at the suggestion of City Attorney Ronald O'Neal,
>> postponed a
>> > final vote until next month.
>> > > "I recommend you give this one a really close look," he said.
>> "There will be
>> > some concern from property owners regarding its use."
>> > > Mayor Laurel Prussing said she asked O'Neal to draft the
>> ordinance.
>> > > "We try to make sure we can combat problems in every way
>> possible to
>> reduce
>> > crime and make neighborhoods safer," she said.
>> > > The proposed ordinance defines 15 criminal activities as
>> nuisance
>> activities,
>> > among them mob action, assault, battery, unlawful use of weapons,
>> > prostitution, sexual assault, public indecency, illegal gambling,
>> arson
>> and
>> > drug-related crimes.
>> > > If "a preponderance of the evidence" indicates that there have
>> been two or
>> > more instances of nuisance activity within six months, the city could
>> under
>> > the ordinance seek a fine of between $300 and $750 per day, per
>> incident
>> > against the property owner, occupant or person in charge.
>> > > In hearing such a case, a judge could consider how serious the
>> problem has
>> > been, the cost to the city in investigating and attempting to resolve
>> it
>> and
>> > how cooperative the property owner or other person has been,
>> according to
>> > wording in the proposed ordinance.
>> > > O'Neal described the ordinance as "a very rough draft." He
>> said it would give
>> > police another option when certain properties are generating an
>> inordinate
>> > number of police calls.
>> > > "This ordinance attempts to put some of the onus on property
>> owners," he
>> > said.
>> > > The city attorney said he helped draft a similar ordinance for
>> the city of
>> > Aurora, where he formerly worked. O'Neal told aldermen that Aurora
>> used its
>> > ordinance selectively against three or four chronic violators.
>> > > "We made property owners aware of this ordinance and let them
>> know
>> there were
>> > some fairly stiff fines available," he said.
>> > > The proposed ordinance would also give Urbana the authority to
>> suspend the
>> > city rental license for a property for a period of 30 to 180 days..
>> > > Asked by Alderman Charlie Smyth what properties in Urbana might
>> be subject
>> to
>> > such a penalty, O'Neal declined to name names, but said "they
>> involve
>> > apartment complexes and one or two bars as well."
>> > > Alderwoman Heather Stevenson asked about a scenario where a
>> landlord was
>> > compelled to rent to a felon because of the city's human rights
>> ordinance,
>> > which prohibits discrimination against someone based on their
>> criminal
>> > record, and a situation where the felon then begins committing
>> crimes.
>> > > "You are not required to keep someone who is perpetrating
>> ongoing
>> criminal
>> > activity," O'Neal responded. "You have grounds to evict
>> them."
>> > > Champaign passed an aggravated-public-nuisances ordinance about
>> a decade
>> ago
>> > that targets property owners who allow their tenants to commit
>> criminal
>> acts,
>> > said Champaign City Attorney Fred Stavins.
>>
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: http://lists.chambana.net/mailman/archive/peace-discuss/attachments/20081112/feeed219/attachment.htm
More information about the Peace-discuss
mailing list