[Peace-discuss] more than a nuisance

[E. Wayne Johnson]

There is a long grocery list of ills with this proposed ordinance that 
should result in its rejection, and I did not yet list all of them.

 >>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.

I didn't raise.  What? That is exactly what I am saying in the 
italicized statement.  Lack of scruples is not a prerequisite to the 
refusal to rent.  Scrupulous and unscrupulous alike will be attacked by 
this ordinance.

Recidivism is a real thing and a real problem.   They go back, Jack, and 
do it again.  Unfortunately this ordinance does nothing to solve the 
problem of recidivism, and just seeks to keep the perpetrators mobile.  
I agree wholeheartedly that we should seek methods that helps them 
become better members of society, and most actions to the contrary are 
going to be fairly unproductive.

    /Confronting Confinement,/ a June 2006 U.S. prison study by the
    bipartisan Commission on Safety and Abuse in America's Prisons,
    reports than on any given day more than 2 million people are
    incarcerated in the United States, and that over the course of a
    year, 13.5 million spend time in prison or jail. African Americans
    are imprisoned at a rate roughly seven times higher than whites, and
    Hispanics at a rate three times higher than whites. /Within three
    years of their release, 67% of former prisoners are rearrested and
    52% are re-incarcerated, a recidivism rate that calls into question
    the effectiveness of America's corrections system, which costs
    taxpayers $60 billion a year/.

    Violence, overcrowding, poor medical and mental health care, and
    numerous other failings plague America's 5,000 prisons and jails.
    The study indicates that even small improvements in medical care
    could significantly reduce recidivism. "What happens inside jails
    and prisons does not stay inside jails and prisons," the commission
    concludes, since 95% of inmates are eventually released back into
    society, ill-equipped to lead productive lives. Given the dramatic
    rise in incarceration over the past decade, public safety is
    threatened unless the corrections system does in fact "correct"
    rather than simply punish. For a copy of the complete report and the
    commission's recommendations for reform, /see
    /www.prisoncommission.org/report.asp
    <http://www.prisoncommission.org/report.asp>.


Informing one another seems to be a worthwhile project, since if we both 
had all of the info, we should be agreeing,
unless we just want to disagree because we think we ought to.


Wayne


Ricky Baldwin wrote:
> 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 
>> <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/20090212/b30e9589/attachment-0001.htm