[Peace-discuss] more than a nuisance

Thu Feb 12 11:10:08 CST 2009

Wayne,

It's debatable which of us it is who "can't see" the obvious.  And I don't think I said you were a landlord.  But I believe I did address your 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.

For one thing, "persons with a criminal record" cannot be correlated with "two or more instances of nuisance activity within a six-month period of time" as it's expressed in the proposed ordinance, "nuisance" being used as a technical term to refer to a given list of activities defined by "federal or state ... as well as municipal" laws: battery, prostitution, dealing drugs, and so on.  You can only line them up well if you assume that people with a past continue to behave in these ways, and do so with some regularity, which is clearly wrong.

I don't know about you, but I have quite a few friends and family members with criminal records, and many others including myself who narrowly avoided criminal records at times, and none of them/us would fit the criteria of "two or more instances of nuisance activity within a six-month period of time" as defined in this ordinance in any case that I know of.  That is to say, there may be others who would fit, but there are plenty who don't, so you can't equate these two so easily.  Your earlier statement about a "high correlation" is basically made up.

True, our criminal (in)justice system does not help people become better members of society, clearly, if only because it takes innocent people or people who have committed relatively minor mistakes and associates them forcibly with much more dangerous people.  Our prisons are training grounds for violence and antisocial behavior, not an antidote to it.  Add to that the problem of harmless behavior being criminalized, and we have a major social cancer in the penal system.  In addition to this, I agree with you that mercy and understanding are much better ways to deal with troubled individuals than the way our society currently does.  

In fact there is a sense in which this ordinance actually could create such a means if applied sparingly: that is, if the landlord and the City work out a plan to "abate" the problem, as outlined in the ordinance, that "plan" could serve as a warning to an individual who may be taking an unwise path in life that something needs to change *before* jail gets involved.  I'm not saying this would necessarily happen, but there could be additions to the ordinance that could encourage an approach of progressive action over sudden punishment - if we weren't throwing the baby out with the bathwater so readily.

For another thing, if your "reality" statement of what "no landlord would do" is an example of what I "can't see"... I can't see it because it's made up.  There are penalties associated with many things in this town and in this country - including the antidiscrimination ordinance - but people including landlords risk it all the time.  Examples of this are pretty commonplace.  

A related serious question, which you didn't raise but Danielle and others have, is whether an unscrupulous landlord will use this ordinance as an excuse to refuse to rent or to get rid of "persons with a criminal record" or others who may fall out of favor for various reasons.  This is of course the way in which the antidiscrimination law works in tandem with this, not in contradiction, but I agree that it isn't at all clear that it solves the problem. 

I've raised this with the Mayor and a few Council members, too, and I think it remains an issue.  I've made various suggestions here and to them, none of which may be the right (best) answer, but it does need addressing.

Another problem I see is police discretion, as I mentioned before.  It's a bigger issue than this ordinance of course: "resisting arrest" is frequently abused because the standard of evidence for it is no standard at all; there are other specific laws that work this way, but then there is the bigger problem of who gets charged while others don't, which some opponents of this ordinance have raised.  These are very serious problems and they need to be addressed.

I think for one thing the ordinance could be a lot clearer that it should not be construed to give the nod to discriminate, and to allay any real fears by clearly delineating a timeline (I believe the Task Force is working on something like this) of warnings before any punitive action is triggered - and related to that to be clear that the City will help landlords figure out how to "abate" a "nuisance" properly, progressively, an not expect an immediate eviction on first offense, etc.

The task force that is working on this ordinance is apparently meeting Feb. 24, if any of us can be there to raise these concerns.

I do not pretend to have all the answers.  You and I clearly have different ideas about "how it works," which is fine, but I do not need you to "inform" me as if you have some specialized knowledge of "natural behavior" - which is bunk - or any of your other opinions that you see as facts.  I also do not need a lecture on the existence of morality - which I certainly have not disputed, not has anyone on theses lists that I have noticed - or its alleged ties to some "absolute reality" on which you seem to think you have a monopoly.  If you mean that I "deny the existence of morality" because I am not a religious person I can only wonder how you came to such a fantastic conclusion.

I also don't want to get into a debate here about "property rights," but I
dispute your ahistorical perspective on it.  It was in fact a
libertarian (small "l") who wrote "Property is theft".  The idea that
what a person happens to own is the same as "that which one has earned" is a pretty big
assumption, if you "dare to scratch the surface."  And the USA may have been partly founded on this assumption, as you claim - more blantantly false in 1776 perhaps because of slavery and the ethnic cleansing of the indigenous people of the Americas - but surely we are free now to recognize the errors of the "founding fathers".  At any rate, that's another tangent.

 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 1:57:48 PM
Subject: Re: [Peace-discuss] more than a nuisance

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)
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/20090212/4f237f58/attachment.html