[Peace-discuss] more than a nuisance

Wed Feb 11 13:57:48 CST 2009

There is long list of ills associated with this proposed ordinance.

Violation of property rights is only one of many problems.

The notion of property rights is a libertarian concept, but only because 
it is a fundamental truth, that one should have
the rights to that which one has earned.  It is not unique to some 
concept of "libertarianism". 
I can't imagine how or why you would disagree, but you are welcome to 
explain why you eschew property rights.

Please address this statement:

/The effect of this criminal nuisance property ordinance is to create a 
de facto repeal of the "law forbidding landlords from denying housing to 
persons because of a criminal record".  No landlord wants the 
endangerment of the stiff penalties of the Criminal Nuisance Property 
Ordinance.  Ya just can't have it both ways./

You surely know that I am not a landlord.  I have been a renter in 
Urbana and am presently a homeowner.  Property rights of individuals is 
among the foundational principles of our country.  I don't perceive 
either renting nor home ownership as being fundamentally evil.  There 
are advantages to renting and advantages to home ownership.

What I am saying is simply to inform you of the natural behaviour of any 
landlord when confronted with conflicting ordinances.  You have to 
understand how the beast reacts to any action that you make.  You seem 
to think that government can provide successively "smaller pairs of 
shoes" and thus guarantee certain behaviour that is contrary to the 
nature of the beast.  It doesn't work like that.  The criminal nuisance 
property ordinance flies in the face of the equal rights to housing 
provisions with a potentially profound nullifying effect

Why is it that you can't see it?
*

I am full agreement with David Johnson's statement.  The spirit of the 
rule of law is the encouragement acceptable patterns of behaviour.  
Those who have stepped out of bounds we should receive unto us again 
with due respect, mercy and compassion.

I do believe that one cannot legislate morality, but at the same time I 
think that the prosperity of the society is absolutely dependent upon 
its morality.  That morality is most active and useful when it is a 
morality that is voluntary and natural to it because it has made contact 
with 'absolute reality'. 

On the other hand there is some group that denies the existence of any 
fundamental reality and therefore denies the existence of any morality, 
yet at the same time this group desires to impose upon the society 
certain rules that dictate and demand the same morality that the group 
simultaneously eschews.

Ricky Baldwin wrote:
> Wasn't aware of your mind-reading abilities, Wayne.
>
> But while we're looking below the surface, I notice that your 
> opposition to this ordinance coincides rather neatly with your 
> oft-stated concerns for property rights, i.e. landlords.  Could be a 
> coincidence, of course.
>
> Has Laurel Prussing said or done anything *else* (that I missed) to 
> suggest that she has a problem with the anti-discrimination laws 
> (which you oppose as a Libertarian, don't you?)
>  
> Ricky
>
> "Speak your mind even if your voice shakes." - Maggie Kuhn
>
>
> ------------------------------------------------------------------------
> *From:* E. Wayne Johnson <ewj at pigs.ag>
> *To:* Ricky Baldwin <baldwinricky at yahoo.com>
> *Cc:* peace discuss <peace-discuss at lists.chambana.net>; Community 
> Courtwatch <discuss at communitycourtwatch.org>
> *Sent:* Wednesday, February 11, 2009 12:18:40 PM
> *Subject:* Re: [Peace-discuss] more than a nuisance
>
> It is far from preposterous.  Insulting is in the eye of the 
> beholder.  If you should dare to look below
> the surface you will find the (Cake-esque 
> <http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dPaJl7tZstM>) nugget that the criminal 
> nuisance ordinance runs at cross-purposes to
> the "law forbidding landlords from denying housing to persons because 
> of a criminal record". 
>
> The effect of this criminal nuisance property ordinance is to create a 
> /de facto/ repeal of the "law forbidding landlords from denying 
> housing to persons because of a criminal record".  No landlord wants 
> the endangerment of the stiff penalties of the Criminal Nuisance 
> Property Ordinance.  Ya just can't have it both ways.
>
> Actually, I think that Prussing knows that that this Criminal Nuisance 
> Property Ordinance is in fact a backdoor nullification of the "law 
> forbidding landlords from denying housing to persons because of a 
> criminal record", and that is why she is pushing for it.
>
> Wayne
>
> Ricky Baldwin wrote:
>> My posting definitely did not focus on "upkeep", but on neglect.  The 
>> point is: "Some people were afraid to go out into the hallways in 
>> their own building because of the violence and violent people going 
>> in and out, or living next door, down the hall, just up stairs."  By 
>> "toxicity" I mean all these threats, which you and I do not face when 
>> we step outside our homes.
>>
>> Of course this law should not be repealed, and it is preposterous and 
>> insulting to people with criminal records that you should ask in this 
>> context.  We are not talking about people with a past here, but with 
>> people who continue to be a threat to those around them.  Very different.
>>
>> I'm not sure why you bring up rich politicians who do not live in our 
>> community, but if you have information that GW Bush or Cheney or 
>> Rumsfeld or someone is moving in, and you want to apply this 
>> ordinance to them, more power to you.  (And I'm not sure how Obama is 
>> much of a "dangerous criminal" yet, but that seems even more beside 
>> the point here.)
>>  
>> Ricky
>>
>> "Speak your mind even if your voice shakes." - Maggie Kuhn
>>
>>
>> ------------------------------------------------------------------------
>> *From:* E. Wayne Johnson <ewj at pigs.ag>
>> *To:* Ricky Baldwin <baldwinricky at yahoo.com>
>> *Cc:* peace discuss <peace-discuss at lists.chambana.net>; Community 
>> Courtwatch <discuss at communitycourtwatch.org>
>> *Sent:* Wednesday, February 11, 2009 9:49:11 AM
>> *Subject:* Re: [Peace-discuss] more than a nuisance
>>
>> Excuse me, but your posting did focus on upkeep.
>>
>> The City of Urbana has a law forbidding landlords from denying 
>> housing to persons because of a criminal record.
>>
>> Do you think this law should be repealed?  I am intending this to be 
>> a serious question.
>>
>> Certainly not all dangerous criminals have criminal records, vis a 
>> vis, the past and current President, many members of Congress,...
>> And not all persons with criminal records are really "dangerous 
>> criminals", but there may be some correlation.
>>
>>
>> Ricky Baldwin wrote:
>>> And basic maintenance is not my point, Wayne, but the hazards and 
>>> sometimes terror of living in a building or in a neighborhood where 
>>> landlords keep renting to dangerous criminals, and so on.
>>>  
>>> Ricky
>>>
>>> "Speak your mind even if your voice shakes." - Maggie Kuhn
>>>
>>>
>>> ------------------------------------------------------------------------
>>> *From:* E. Wayne Johnson <ewj at pigs.ag>
>>> *To:* Ricky Baldwin <baldwinricky at yahoo.com>
>>> *Cc:* peace discuss <peace-discuss at lists.chambana.net>; Community 
>>> Courtwatch <discuss at communitycourtwatch.org>
>>> *Sent:* Wednesday, February 11, 2009 12:13:53 AM
>>> *Subject:* Re: [Peace-discuss] more than a nuisance
>>>
>>> Your previous experience and hard work is noted and appreciated by 
>>> all, but Basic maintenance is not at all what the proposed urbana 
>>> criminal nuisance ordinance is about.
>>>
>>> The most recent draft is available at the city's website. 
>>> http://www.city.urbana.il.us/Urbana/City_Council/Agendas/01-12-2009/ordinance_2008-11-135.pdf
>>> Additional info here:
>>> http://www.city.urbana.il.us/Urbana/City_Council/Agendas/02-09-2009/ordinance_2008-11-135.pdf
>>>
>>> Ricky Baldwin wrote:
>>>> My opinion may not be popular on either of these lists, but I think 
>>>> I ought to explain where I'm coming from.
>>>>
>>>> In the nineties I worked for ACORN - an association I was never 
>>>> prouder of than in this last election.  As a lone NYC Council 
>>>> member once said in another context - about not so different 
>>>> attacks on poor people organizing for their rights to vote, to 
>>>> improve their communities, to live in decent housing and safe 
>>>> neighborhoods, attacks by people who oppose all those things - "It 
>>>> is a badge of honor!"
>>>>
>>>> When I was at ACORN I spent my days and evenings six days a week 
>>>> walking around in the poorest, most dangerous (a.k.a. "worst") 
>>>> neighborhoods in the cities where I worked, talking to people who 
>>>> lived in toxic environments.  There were many rats, and in Buffalo 
>>>> skunks, garbage in the streets not swept by the city, abandoned 
>>>> buildings, vacant lots.  When it rained water cascaded down the 
>>>> walls of the living rooms and kitchens where we sat and talked and 
>>>> they offered me orange juice and tried to figure out why I wasn't 
>>>> married and we planned the next meeting and how to get the press 
>>>> interested and which local preachers might help and which might get 
>>>> in the way, which cops were honest and which were dangerous 
>>>> criminals.  Front doors of apartment buildings didn't lock or had 
>>>> been broken for months.  Some people were afraid to go out into the 
>>>> hallways in their own building because of the violence and violent 
>>>> people going in and out, or living next door, down the hall, just 
>>>> up stairs.
>>>>
>>>> These were hazards, nightmares, not mere "nuisances".
>>>>  
>>>> Landlord after landlord refused to fix anything, get rid of any 
>>>> dangerous tenants haunting the buildings, or take any 
>>>> responsibility at all.  People in these communities were trapped.  
>>>> They lived there because they had few options, and there was very 
>>>> little recourse.  We organized together and fought the landlords, 
>>>> pressured city government to hold them accountable, and demanded 
>>>> that the landlords and the local government take some 
>>>> responsibility for the neglect and toxicity of those 
>>>> neighborhoods.  It was always an uphill climb, because money and 
>>>> influence and property rights were always on the other side. 
>>>>
>>>> We won some, one piece at a time, but in truth we lost more often.  
>>>> I think a lot of us know that song.  Even the victories were often 
>>>> mixed bags, but we improved real lives.
>>>>
>>>> I do have concerns about the proposed "Nuisance Ordinance" - some 
>>>> along the lines I think expressed by Charlie Smyth - and I'd like 
>>>> to see a more community-based, even complaint-driven system, rather 
>>>> than reliance on the police - but overall I support this effort.  I 
>>>> hope I've explained why. 
>>>>
>>>> I continue to support efforts to expose and address police racial 
>>>> profiling and other abuses of power.  I still hope we as a 
>>>> community can strengthen the police review board some day soon.  
>>>> But I do not see this ordinance as repressive on its face, but 
>>>> potentially very progressive.
>>>>
>>>> In Solidarity,
>>>> Ricky
>>>>
>>>> "Speak your mind even if your voice shakes." - Maggie Kuhn
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> ------------------------------------------------------------------------
>>>>
>>>> _______________________________________________
>>>> Peace-discuss mailing list
>>>> Peace-discuss at lists.chambana.net
>>>> http://lists.chambana.net/cgi-bin/listinfo/peace-discuss
>>>>   
>>>
>>
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: http://lists.chambana.net/mailman/archive/peace-discuss/attachments/20090211/38386448/attachment.htm