[Peace-discuss] Urbana's WQ seeking ethnic cleansing and more power over property owners.

[E. Wayne Johnson]

The implication seems to be that the criminal activity is a product of 
the property due
to some fault of the landlord, which is absurd.

All of the activities are things done by people not by property.   Once 
the people are
arrested and removed as provided for by existing laws, the problem is 
ended.  If the
police fail to round up all of those responsible, how is that the fault 
of the property or the property owner?

Indeed the people participating in or instigating the "criminal 
activities" are not necessarily even
tenants in the case of rental properties, and they might not be "invited 
guests" or "family members" of tenants.

What I see here impending is yet another violation of property rights by 
the City Administration.

*

Tom, you are predicting the same racial outcome that I saw in this 
ordinance.

Tom Abram wrote:
> So if there were protests outside the Courthouse and people were
> charged with mob action for political reasons, would the Courthouse be
> fined?  If people are already being charged, I don't see the
> overwhelming reason to charge the location where the alleged crime
> took place.  In terms of the racial element, I've seen primarily black
> house parties draw cops at a much higher frequency than primarily
> white ones.  This law would increase the injustice in this area.  I
> don't see a compelling reason for this law, and see several flaws.  It
> would be useful if they gave some examples of why they feel this is
> necessary.
>
> Tom Abram
>
> On 11/12/08, E. Wayne Johnson <ewj at pigs.ag> wrote:
>   
>> 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 </news/reporter/mmonson/>
>>
>>
>>             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/20081112/0a26b6a0/attachment.htm