[Peace-discuss] Re: Nuisance Ordinance and Racism
E. Wayne Johnson
ewj at pigs.ag
Sun Jan 4 22:51:56 CST 2009
Actually I am working on putting in my thought on addressing the Roots.
John W. wrote:
>
> On Sun, Jan 4, 2009 at 9:37 PM, E. Wayne Johnson <ewj at pigs.ag
> <mailto: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>
>> <mailto:ewj at pigs.ag>/* wrote:
>>
>> From: E. Wayne Johnson <ewj at pigs.ag> <mailto:ewj at pigs.ag>
>> Subject: Re: [Peace-discuss] Re: Nuisance Ordinance and Racism
>> To: "Marti Wilkinson" <martiwilki at gmail.com>
>> <mailto:martiwilki at gmail.com>
>> Cc: peace-discuss at lists.chambana.net
>> <mailto:peace-discuss at lists.chambana.net>, "Randall Cotton"
>> <recotton at earthlink.net> <mailto: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.
>>>>
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: http://lists.chambana.net/mailman/archive/peace-discuss/attachments/20090104/946c1e85/attachment.htm
More information about the Peace-discuss
mailing list