[Peace-discuss] Re: Nuisance Ordinance and Racism

[E. Wayne Johnson]

Ricky,

I think it is reasonable to state your opinion and state your case.

I don't think that is reasonable to equate things that are under the 
control of a landlord ("toxic waste") with
things that are not under the control of the landlord (behaviour of the 
tenants and their guests).

As many others have pointed out, the ordinance is likely to be unevenly 
enforced, and at best, it is completely
misdirected in that it does not address any of the roots of the problem. 

*

Since I moved to Urbana from Guangzhou in China in 2001, the Philo Road 
area has collapsed
with several businesses there closing (Kmart, the shoe store, 3 or 4 
various small shoppes in Sunnycrest, the dental center,
the IGA store, and Piccadilly Liquors), Lincoln Square has completely 
imploded and died, and several other
small businesses have either died or failed to thrive.  (/I am confident 
that I didn't jinx Urbana by my arrival./)
At the onset I had a generally positive view of Urbana's new Mayor as I 
had credited her
(falsely) with attracting some of the new activities and new 
construction occurring on her watch.

At my very first meeting with her, she told me that the financial 
activities of the city should not be known by the people.  We had a long
hard fight with her on the issue of transparency in the local government 
with much chicanery on her part.  Among all the things that she did
the most dastardly was the placement of "fluff" referenda on the ballot 
to block the activity of grassroots democracy in querying the will of
the people.  It became clear to me that the goal of the mayor and her 
supporters was remain in power, and to squelch all external voices.

At the city council meeting in early December where a transparency 
referendum was discussed, she got her facts a bit confused and
attributed events surrounding IRV petitioning with those having to do 
with the transparency issue. 

In all cases, the goal of those of us working on transparency and IRV 
was to improve the quality of local government. 
Transparency is going to become more and more important as city revenues 
shrink, expenditures balloon, and deficits loom.
IRV is a great idea, and Urbana's ruling class is terrified that the 
people might actually get a voice in city government.

Mayor Prussing has made herself the National poster child of elitism and 
the mailed fist in city government.
All tyrants have their supporters, and quite likely most pompous prigs 
like Laurel Lunt Prussing
did not start out to be as arrogant and authoritarian as they inevitably 
turned out to be, or were found out to be, later o

Wayne


Ricky Baldwin wrote:
> Sorry, but I have to say that we may disagree with this ordinance - or 
> some of us may agree - but the reasons given for it at the Urbana City 
> Council's "committee of the whole" meeting where this was debated were 
> not crazy or rightwing.  People who live in neighborhoods, 
> particularly poor neighborhoods, are often forced to live next to 
> rental property where a great deal of dangerous, anti-social behavior 
> occurs.  The police may be little help or may not be able to get 
> convictions, or to get convictions to stick, or otherwise unable to 
> abate the hazard.  If a landlord had toxic waste spilling out of a 
> rental property into poor (or "middle class") neighbors' homes and/or 
> yards, very few of us would object to the City or the Mayor trying to 
> clean it up. If it was tenants who were dumping the waste, we would 
> not object to the City demanding their expulsion.  But there are other 
> kinds of hazrds, some of which most of us have never had to live next 
> to. 
>
> We may or may not believe that these reasons justify this action.  We 
> may feel that authorities are being given too much latitude in this 
> particular version of an ordinance that *could* be justified if more 
> limited.  These takes would be understandabe and reasonable.  But I 
> fail to see how this action makes Laurel Prussing's credentials as a 
> "progressive" somehow suspect.  Or that "she is getting worse, and 
> worser, and worserer".  That seems to me throwing the baby out with 
> the bath water.
>
> What am I missing here?
>
> I have disagreed with Laurel Prussing from time to time.  She was dead 
> wrong on IRV, for example, and I said so in the News-Gazette and told 
> her so on the phone.  She was wrong in her objections to the 
> Resolution in Support of the Employee Free Choice Act most recently 
> (although she didn't really try to block it in the end).  But in 
> general I believe she has been a very good mayor, much better than any 
> other mayor I believe I have ever personally experienced.  I don't say 
> that lightly.  But she has taken courageous stands against, for 
> example, drug testing City employees willy-nilly.  She was very public 
> in her support for the citizens' police review board, established a 
> commission to study it, allowed the grassroot to name the people who 
> would serve on it, and worked to make it happen over months.  She 
> caught a lot of flak for that and never flinched.  And so on.  She 
> attended AWARE's postcards for peace event at the IMC, too - how many 
> mayors would do that?
>
> Obviously this is not an exhaustive list.  It isn't meant to be.  Of 
> course it is right and just to disagree with any politician or elected 
> official anytime they're wrong, just as we should support them when 
> they are right.  And we have the right to run against any politician 
> or elected official as we see fit, for whatever reasons.  This is not 
> about that.  I also understand that we get excited in the heat of 
> conflict, over issues we feel strongly about.  Many of us have 
> divergent views on a number of issues, and that's just fine.  But I 
> had to say that I find this a mischaracterization of a generally very 
> good mayor.  I would be dishonest if I did not.
>  
> Ricky
>
> "Speak your mind even if your voice shakes." - Maggie Kuhn
>
>
> ------------------------------------------------------------------------
> *From:* E. Wayne Johnson <ewj at pigs.ag>
> *To:* Randall Cotton <recotton at earthlink.net>
> *Cc:* peace-discuss at lists.chambana.net
> *Sent:* Friday, January 2, 2009 8:47:20 PM
> *Subject:* Re: [Peace-discuss] Re: Nuisance Ordinance and Racism
>
> >>And Prussing is supposed to be progressive?
>
> She IS progressive.  She gets worse, and worser, and worserer.
>
>
>
> Randall Cotton wrote:
> > Below is the text of the draft "Criminal Nuisance Property" ordinance.
> > Though at least one revision to this initial draft is expected, the text
> > below is what resulted from Mayor Prussing's push for this (she 
> asked City
> > Attorney Ron O'Neal to work this up for her).
> >
> > The next discussion of this impending ordinance is expected at the 
> January
> > 12th City Council meeting (technically the 12th is a meeting of the 
> COW -
> > Committee of the Whole).
> >
> > Key passages:
> >
> > "Nuisance property means any property on which the police department has
> > two (2) or more official police reports of nuisance activity which has
> > occurred within a six-month period." [Even if those reports are actually
> > erroneous - REC]
> >
> > "Nuisance activities mean any of the following activities, behaviors, or
> > conduct, as defined by federal or state statutes, as well as municipal
> > ordinances:
> > (1) Mob action.
> > (2) Assault.
> > (3) Battery.
> > (4) Unlawful use of weapons or firearms.
> > (5) Unlawful discharge of a firearm.
> > (6) Prostitution.
> > (7) Soliciting or patronizing a prostitute.
> > (8) Keeping a house of prostitution.
> > (9) Pandering.
> > (10) Obscenity.
> > (11) Sexual assault and sexual abuse.
> > (12) Public indecency.
> > (13) Unlawful manufacture, sale, distribution, possession, or use of
> > controlled substances.
> > (14) Unlawful, production, sale, distribution, possession, or use of
> > cannabis.
> > (15) Illegal gambling.
> > (16) Keeping or maintaining a place of illegal gambling.
> > (17) Unlawful possession of gambling devices.
> > (18) Arson."
> >
> > "No property shall be declared a criminal nuisance property
> > unless it is proven by a preponderance of the evidence there has been
> > two (2) or more instances of nuisance activity within a six-month period
> > of time." [That is, up to 49.99...% chance that no nuisance activity
> > occurred - REC]
> >
> > "Any person or person in charge who (a) encourages or permits a
> > property to become a nuisance property as defined in Subsection A.; (b)
> > allows a property to continue as a nuisance property; (c) fails to
> > implement reasonable and warranted measures, as specified by the police
> > chief, shall be in violation of this section."
> >
> > "Each day that a violation of this section continues shall be
> > considered a separate and distinct offense. The fine for violation 
> of this
> > Section shall be no less than $300.00 per incident per day and no more
> > than $750.00 per incident per day or the maximum per incident allowed by
> > the Code of Ordinances, whichever is greater."
> >
> > "the City of Urbana may, at its discretion ... Suspend the rental 
> license
> > at a criminal nuisance property, if such property is rented or 
> leased. If
> > such license is suspended, the owner of the property shall close and
> > secure said property..."
> >
> > So, in summary, the Police Chief is essentially given the power to fine
> > landlords hundreds of dollars a day and close their property, 
> kicking out
> > all tenants, if the landlord doesn't follow "reasonable and warranted
> > measures, as specified by the police chief". And this all comes about
> > based on the judgments of the police that there's a "preponderance 
> of the
> > evidence" that "nuisance activity" has occurred at the property.
> >
> > So this appears to bypass the normal due process for criminal 
> accusations
> > and "proof beyond a reasonable doubt" in a court of law. It establishes
> > very consequential powers to the police (and the police chief in
> > particular) which can be wielded even if he thinks there may be up to a
> > 49.99...% chance that no nuisance activity occurred.
> >
> > So we have a combination of immense power to penalize with unscrutinized
> > "discretion" of individual police officers to wield said penalization.
> > Just as racial profiling exists in the context of traffic stops (because
> > of unscrutinized "discretion"), this power will also tend to be 
> abused and
> > be disproportionately wielded against minorities and the poor. And 
> even if
> > it's fought in court, the police need only convince a judge that the
> > "nuisance" activity only *probably* occurred.
> >
> > And Prussing is supposed to be progressive?
> >
> > R
> >
> > AN ORDINANCE AMENDING CHAPTER 15, ARTICLE IV, DIVISION 1
> >
> > OF THE URBANA CODE OF ORDINANCES
> >
> > (Criminal Nuisance Property)
> >
> > WHEREAS, the City of Urbana has a population of more that 25,000 and is,
> > therefore, a home rule unit under subsection (a) of Section 6 of Article
> > VII of the Illinois Constitution of 1970; and
> >
> > WHEREAS, subject to said Section, a home rule unit may exercise any 
> power
> > and perform any function pertaining to its government and affairs 
> for the
> > protection of the public health, safety, morals, and welfare; and
> >
> > WHEREAS, both the effective control and elimination of criminal nuisance
> > activity are essential to the health and welfare of the City of Urbana's
> > inhabitants and visitors, as well as essential to the peace and quiet
> > enjoyment of the City's neighborhoods; and
> >
> > WHEREAS, the Illinois Legislature has, for a number of years,
> > criminalized, as enumerated in 720 ILCS 5/37-1 et seq., the 
> maintenance of
> > nuisance properties, said properties having been used to facilitate
> > criminal activity unabated;
> >
> > Page 1 of 6
> >
> > WHEREAS, the City of Urbana has an interest in encouraging the 
> prompt and
> > effective abatement of criminal nuisance behavior by property owners and
> > occupants;
> >
> > WHEREAS, the City of Urbana wishes create an Ordinance that 
> prohibits the
> > facilitation of, or acquiescence to, criminal nuisance activity on any
> > property over which the City has jurisdiction;
> >
> > NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT ORDAINED BY THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF 
> URBANA,
> > ILLINOIS, as follows:
> >
> > Section One:
> >
> > Section 15-65, to be titled "Criminal Nuisance Property", is hereby
> > created, and Chapter 15, Article IV, Division 1 of the City of 
> Urbana Code
> > of Ordinances shall be amended, as follows:
> >
> > Section 15-65.
> >
> > A. Definitions
> >
> > Nuisance activities mean any of the following activities, behaviors, or
> > conduct, as defined by federal or state statutes, as well as municipal
> > ordinances:
> >
> > (1) Mob action.
> >
> > (2) Assault.
> >
> > (3) Battery.
> >
> > (4) Unlawful use of weapons or firearms.
> >
> > (5) Unlawful discharge of a firearm.
> >
> > (6) Prostitution.
> >
> > (7) Soliciting or patronizing a prostitute.
> >
> > (8) Keeping a house of prostitution.
> >
> > (9) Pandering.
> >
> > (10) Obscenity.
> >
> > Page 2 of 6
> >
> > (11) Sexual assault and sexual abuse.
> >
> > (12) Public indecency.
> >
> > (13) Unlawful manufacture, sale, distribution, possession, or use of
> > controlled substances.
> >
> > (14) Unlawful, production, sale, distribution, possession, or use of
> > cannabis.
> >
> > (15) Illegal gambling.
> >
> > (16) Keeping or maintaining a place of illegal gambling.
> >
> > (17) Unlawful possession of gambling devices.
> >
> > (18) Arson.
> >
> > Nuisance property means any property on which the police department has
> > two (2) or more official police reports of nuisance activity which has
> > occurred within a six-month period.
> >
> > Person means any natural person, agent, association, firm, partnership,
> > corporation or other entity capable of owning, occupying, or using
> > property in the City of Urbana.
> >
> > Person in charge means any person, in actual or constructive 
> possession of
> > a property, including, but not limited to, an owner or occupant of
> > property under his ownership or control.
> >
> > Police chief means the Chief of Police of the City of Urbana or his
> > designee.
> >
> > Property means any property, including land and that which is affixed,
> > incidental, or appurtenant to land, including, but not limited to, any
> > business or residence, parking area, loading area, landscaping, building
> > or structure or any separate part, unit, or portion thereof, or any
> > business equipment, whether or not permanent. For property consisting of
> > more than one unit, property may be limited to the unit or the 
> portion of
> > the property on which any nuisance activity has occurred or is 
> occurring,
> > but includes areas of the property used in common by all units of
> > property, including, without limitation, other structures erected on the
> > property and areas used for parking, loading, recreational 
> activities, and
> > landscaping.
> >
> > B. Violations
> >
> > (1) Any property on which on which criminal nuisance activity occurs may
> > be declared a criminal nuisance
> >
> > Page 3 of 6
> >
> > property. No property shall be declared a criminal nuisance property
> > unless it is proven by a preponderance of the evidence that there 
> has been
> > two (2) or more instances of nuisance activity within a six-month period
> > of time.
> >
> > (2) Any person or person in charge who (a) encourages or permits a
> > property to become a nuisance property as defined in Subsection A.; (b)
> > allows a property to continue as a nuisance property; (c) fails to
> > implement reasonable and warranted measures, as specified by the police
> > chief, shall be in violation of this section. In determining whether any
> > person or person in charge implemented reasonable and warranted 
> measures,
> > the trier of fact shall consider, at least, the following:
> >
> > (3) Each day that a violation of this section continues shall be
> > considered a separate and distinct offense. The fine for violation 
> of this
> > Section shall be no less than $300.00 per incident per day and no more
> > than $750.00 per incident per day or the maximum per incident allowed by
> > the Code of Ordinances, whichever is greater. Such fine shall be a
> > judgment against the guilty person(s), owner(s), occupant(s), or 
> person(s)
> > in charge jointly and severally. In establishing the amount of any fine,
> > the hearing officer may consider any of the following factors:
> >
> > a. The actions taken by the person in charge/owner/occupant to 
> mitigate or
> > correct the nuisance activities at the property.
> >
> > b. The repeated or continuous nature of the problem.
> >
> > c. The magnitude or gravity of the problem.
> >
> > d. How cooperative the person in charge/owner/occupant is with the 
> City of
> > Urbana in abating.
> >
> > e. The cost to the city of investigating, correcting, or attempting to
> > correct the nuisance activities.
> >
> > f. Any other factor deemed relevant by the trier of fact. Evidence of a
> > property's general reputation and/or the reputation of the persons 
> in it,
> > or frequenting it, shall be admissible.
> >
> > (4) If a person or person in charge is found guilty of a violation 
> of this
> > section, the court shall, in addition to fining the party, order the
> > person in charge/owner/occupant to take reasonable, timely, and lawful
> > measures to abate the nuisance activity, including specifying deadlines
> > for the same.
> >
> > Page 4 of 6
> >
> > (5) In addition to the penalties above, the City of Urbana may, at its
> > discretion, take the following actions:
> >
> > (a) Suspend the rental license at a criminal nuisance property, if such
> > property is rented or leased. If such license is suspended, the owner of
> > the property shall close and secure said property against all 
> unauthorized
> > access, use, and occupancy for a period of not less than thirty (30) 
> days,
> > or more than 180 days. If the City suspends the rental license of a
> > property, the person in charge, or the owner/occupant of the 
> property, if
> > those persons are different than the person in charge, shall receive
> > written notice from the Community Development Department that his/her
> > license to operate rental property within the corporate/jurisdictional
> > limits of the City is suspended. The suspension of any license shall not
> > release or discharge the license holder from paying fees or fines under
> > this Code, nor shall such license holder be released from criminal
> > prosecution or further civil proceedings.
> >
> > Section Two.
> >
> > This Ordinance, as amended, shall be in full force and effect, and shall
> > be controlling, immediately upon its passage and approval.
> >
> > Section Three.
> >
> > All ordinances, or parts of ordinances thereof, which are in 
> conflict with
> > the provisions of any portion of this Ordinance, as amended, are hereby
> > repealed to the extent of any conflict.
> >
> > Section Four.
> >
> > A prosecution which is pending on the effective date of this article and
> > which arose from a violation of an ordinance repealed by this 
> article, or
> > a prosecution which is started within six (6) months after the effective
> > date of this article, arising from a violation of an ordinance 
> repealed by
> > this article, shall be tried and determined exactly as if the ordinance
> > had not been repealed. If any portion of the foregoing amendment to
> > Chapter 15 shall be found, by a court of competent jurisdiction, to be
> > unlawful or unconstitutional, the remaining parts of this Ordinance will
> > remain in full force and effect.
> >
> > Page 5 of 6 Page 6 of 6
> >
> > Section Five.
> >
> > This article applies to all properties within the corporate or
> > jurisdictional limits of the City of Urbana.
> >
> > PASSED by the City Council this ________ day of ____________________,
> > ______.
> >
> > AYES:
> >
> > NAYS:
> >
> > ABSTAINS:
> >
> > ________________________________
> >
> > Phyllis D. Clark, City Clerk
> >
> > APPROVED by the Mayor this ________ day of _________________________,
> > ______.
> >
> > ________________________________
> >
> > Laurel Lunt Prussing, Mayor
> >
> > _______________________________________________
> > Peace-discuss mailing list
> > Peace-discuss at lists.chambana.net 
> <mailto:Peace-discuss at lists.chambana.net>
> > http://lists.chambana.net/cgi-bin/listinfo/peace-discuss
> >
> >
> > 
> _______________________________________________
> Peace-discuss mailing list
> Peace-discuss at lists.chambana.net <mailto: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/20090103/a828ea70/attachment-0001.html