[Peace-discuss] Re: Nuisance Ordinance and Racism

[John W.]

It's funny...I agree with Ricky but I also agree with some of what you say,
Wayne.


On Sat, Jan 3, 2009 at 9:54 PM, E. Wayne Johnson <ewj at pigs.ag> wrote:

 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).
>

Ah, but that IS very much under the control of the landlord.

First of all, the landlord screens the tenants, and determines what type of
tenants s/he wants living in her/his building.   There are certain
fundamental bases upon which a landlord cannot discriminate, but the
landlord can most certainly discriminate on the basis of credit history,
prior negative history with the tenant union, a background of criminal
convictions or civil judgments, etc.

I live in an apartment building with 11 units.  We all sign a lease, which
is a binding contract.  One of the provisions in the lease is that we not
make excessive noise.  If one of my neighboring tenants is making excessive
noise, I first go and talk to the tenant directly.  If that approach fails,
I phone my landlord, who is very conscientious and wants to maintain a
decent building.  The landlord then phones the offending tenant, and warns
him or her to keep the noise down.  That generally works, because the
landlord has every legal right to boot the noisy tenant's ass out of the
building for violating a term of the lease.  The tenant has control over
his/her behavior, and the landlord has control over the premises and who is
on the premises.

Should my appeal to the landlord fail, I then call the police, and a
complaint is lodged against the noisy tenant.  I don't recall seeing
"excessive noise" in the Urbana ordinance, but I personally don't want to
live in the vicinity of noisy tenants.  My rent entitles me to, among other
things, the "quiet enjoyment" of my domicile, and I take that very
seriously.



> 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.
>

Virtually nothing in our criminal justice system addresses the underlying
roots of the crime problem.  There's nothing unique about this ordinance.
"Solving" crime is, methinks, largely beyond the powers of the City of
Urbana.



> *
>
> 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.*)
>

This is all unfortunate and I don't quite understand it.  It seems to me
that Lincoln Square is in a choice location and should be thriving.  But
what's your point?  Is this loss of business responsible for the crime
problem in Urbana?



> 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.
>

Remaining in power seems to be the goal of most politicians, though
considerably less so on the local than on the national level.  It's the rare
politician who does the "right" thing irrespective of the political
consequences, and I've seen those politicians take as much or more flack
from citizens than any of the others.  You can't please all of the voters
all of the time no matter WHAT you do and how conscientious you are.



> 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 on.
>

There's no doubt that Mayor Prussing is an elitist, just like a good many
readers of this list.  She's led a pretty privileged life, and it's the only
life she knows.   ("Mailed fist", on the other hand, is pure libertarian
speak.)  Despite that, I agree with Ricky that there could be FAR worse
mayors.  Laurel, despite her privileged life, is surprisingly UNpompous and
UNarrogant.

John Wason



> 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> <ewj at pigs.ag>
> *To:* Randall Cotton <recotton at earthlink.net> <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.
>
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: http://lists.chambana.net/mailman/archive/peace-discuss/attachments/20090104/2bbf83ff/attachment.htm