[Peace-discuss] Re: Nuisance Ordinance and Racism

[John W.]

On Sun, Jan 4, 2009 at 9:37 PM, E. Wayne Johnson <ewj at pigs.ag> wrote:

 What do you mean?
>

Jen is asking you, Wayne, what type and degree of crime you're willing to
tolerate next door to you.  It's a valid question even though I surmise that
you, as an elitist, live in a neighborhood where crime is not a real big
issue.

Of course you did suggest that any ordinance should address the ROOTS of the
problem.  We're still waiting to hear how you'd do that - aside, of course,
from utilizing your own pecuniary advantages to move to a neighborhood
that's "safe".

John W.




> 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> <ewj at pigs.ag>* wrote:
>
> From: E. Wayne Johnson <ewj at pigs.ag> <ewj at pigs.ag>
> Subject: Re: [Peace-discuss] Re: Nuisance Ordinance and Racism
> To: "Marti Wilkinson" <martiwilki at gmail.com> <martiwilki at gmail.com>
> Cc: peace-discuss at lists.chambana.net, "Randall Cotton"
> <recotton at earthlink.net> <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> 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> 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/20090104/26552e44/attachment.html