[Peace-discuss] Re: Nuisance Ordinance and Racism
E. Wayne Johnson
ewj at pigs.ag
Sun Jan 4 21:37:04 CST 2009
What do you mean?
Jenifer Cartwright wrote:
> Excellent points, Marti, John and Ricky. Wayne, you can NOT be serious
> about yr objections!! What are YOU willing to have in YOUR neighborhood???
> --Jenifer
>
> --- On *Sun, 1/4/09, E. Wayne Johnson /<ewj at pigs.ag>/* wrote:
>
> From: E. Wayne Johnson <ewj at pigs.ag>
> Subject: Re: [Peace-discuss] Re: Nuisance Ordinance and Racism
> To: "Marti Wilkinson" <martiwilki at gmail.com>
> Cc: peace-discuss at lists.chambana.net, "Randall Cotton"
> <recotton at earthlink.net>
> Date: Sunday, January 4, 2009, 1:40 PM
>
> Did you ever get the power hooked back up to your garage?
>
> Marti Wilkinson wrote:
>>
>> If we can get back to the original issue - there are different
>> opinions on the proposed ordinance regarding property owners and
>> the conduct of their tenants. My primary objection is due to how
>> an ordinance like this can potentially be enforced.
>>
>> By that same token, I am not unsympathetic to property owners who
>> live next door to individuals who engage in criminal conduct. My
>> question here is what would the individual do if the neighbors
>> happen to be homeowners? To me the question of how to deal with
>> poor neighbors is one that can't always be addressed through the
>> creation of laws.
>>
>> For example, when I bought my house in 1997 I came close to not
>> making an offer on the house because the owners pulled a couple
>> of stunts when I attempted to see the house. I wasn't able to get
>> a good look at the backyard due to an oversize swimming pool.
>> However, I was living in a place where the lease was going to
>> expire and it was the best house I could afford at the time.
>>
>> When I moved in I had to cut down 5 foot high weeds that were
>> spread across the back yard. Additionally I had to fill in the
>> hole that had been left when the previous owners removed their
>> swimming pool. Underneath the wood deck (which I later removed)
>> was an exposed wire which connected the detached garage to the
>> house. In order to alleviate the fire hazard I had to disconnect
>> the power to my garage. In the process of moving the previous
>> owners trashed the place, left a mess, and took off with the
>> mailbox. Their daughter later came over and told me how
>> embarrassed she was by the state of things.
>>
>> This is not all....a couple of my neighbors, who moved here from
>> Germany, told me that they had been subject to verbal abuse and
>> harassment by the previous owners. Another neighbor of mine, who
>> is blind, received similar treatment. I've heard stories about
>> drinking and loud fights and when I checked the circuit clerk
>> site I found that members of the family have been on the
>> receiving end of restraining orders. However, as homeowners, they
>> were not subject to the types of nuisance laws that are being
>> proposed against renters.
>>
>> At the time I bought the house the previous owners told me they
>> were building a place out 'in the country' and, considering what
>> I have heard, it may be that they just were not a good fit for
>> living in a municipal community.
>>
>> Needless to say my neighbors were happy to see me move in:)
>>
>> Marti
>>
>>
>>
>> On Sun, Jan 4, 2009 at 9:38 AM, E. Wayne Johnson <ewj at pigs.ag
>> <mailto:ewj at pigs.ag>> wrote:
>>
>> You certainly seem to be far more cynical and far more
>> willing to settle for a lot less than I am,
>> and certainly more willing to surrender your personal
>> liberties to the (I'll say it again) iron thumb.
>> I am surprised to find you and Ricky both defending the
>> status quo in Urbana.It
>>> Laurel, despite her privileged life, is surprisingly
>>> UNpompous and UNarrogant.
>> Really!!!!????? You've GOT to be kidding.
>>
>> She is the most pompous and arrogant person that I know and
>> certainly one of the most pompous I have ever
>> had the misfortune to have met. I dont know what draws a
>> serpent like her into a backwater like Urbana.
>> She is obviously someone "Not from around here".
>>
>> I perceive Laurel Lunt Prussing as a sort of post-modern
>> Margaret Sanger, a campaigner, nay, a marauder
>> for the superior blooded elite. She is one who perceives the
>> inferior and now cowering unfortunate miserable unwashed
>> under her purview as "human weeds". Since it is all So too
>> damn late for her to have prevented their birth,
>> she desires to call in and invalidate their franchise on life
>> by what ever post-natal means are at her disposal. She is,
>> as some
>> others have observed, genuinely classist, and racist to the
>> ribosome. But she covers for and disguises her
>> inherent illiberality by various outward displays and
>> posturings of false concern. She knows that she
>> must always maintain the facade because she is a political
>> animal. She is constantly on the lookout for each opportunity to
>> slapping the scarlet badge of bigotry and racism on others as
>> a cloak for her own occasional "wardrobe malfunctions".
>>
>> The fact that someone like Laurel Lunt Prussing was ever able
>> to hold a public office is a testimony not only to the power of
>> deep pockets in the political game but also to the sheer
>> ignorance and apathy of the hapless electorate.
>>
>> That's pretty much how I see her, but I might think of
>> something else later on.
>>
>>
>> John W. wrote:
>>> 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 <mailto: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> <mailto:ewj at pigs.ag>
>>>> *To:* Randall Cotton <recotton at earthlink.net>
>>>> <mailto:recotton at earthlink.net>
>>>> *Cc:* peace-discuss at lists.chambana.net
>>>> <mailto: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.
>>>
>>>
>>
>> _______________________________________________
>> 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
> 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/20090104/03e5a8ba/attachment-0001.html
More information about the Peace-discuss
mailing list