Posts
At its July 7, 2008 meeting the Monona City Council adopted a so-called 'chronic nuisance' ordinance. The vote was 4-1 and I was the one in opposition. (I previously erroneously stated that vote was 5-1, but Alder Thomas was excused from the meeting.)
Addendum: Here is a link to the ordinance Ordinance 5-08-580 Prohibiting Chronic Nuisance Property.pdf
See the Herald Independent's story: http://herald-independent.com/main.asp?SectionID=2&SubSectionID=2&ArticleID=195
The idea behind the ordinance is a fine one: make landlords more accountable for the behavior of their tenants insofar as that behavior affects the rest of the community. The problem, in my view, is that the ordinance undermines due process of law in a fundamentally unfair manner.
The ordinance allows for the imposition of sanctions on a property-owner when the property generates "Enforcement Actions for Nuisance Activities". In order to qualify as an "enforcement action", however, no finding of guilt is required. The mere issuance of the charge is sufficient.
As I stated at the meeting, this provision turns the presumption of innocence on its head. The property-owner is now conclusively presumed guilty for the acts of anyone at their property. The property-owner has no way of challenging the underlying charges. In other words, the property owner is being punished because the state charges that his tenants (or anyone else at his property) have violated one of some 27 potential violations listed in the ordinance.
By the way, this law does not just apply to the crummy landlord of a large complex. It also applies to each and every business and residence in the city.
This law is not another Patriot Act or FISA, but it is another chip in our adherence to due process and the rule of law. We have become conditioned to the slow surrender of our rights in some allegedly pragmatic trade off: a little freedom and adherence to law for a little security.
Related:
(Democrats Capitulate on FISA The American Prospect)
Friday, July 11, 2008
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
You wrote, "no finding of guilt is required. The mere issuance of the charge is sufficient."
ReplyDeleteIf you had a chance to re-write the ordinance, what would you change to ensure that the business/property owners receive due process?
I understand your dismay with the new ordinance but how would you approach the problem in order to deal with nuisance properties?
Nuisance properties should be addressed but I also wonder if existing laws on the books could have remedied the problem if only they were enforced.
How does this compare to the city of Madison ordinances? And other nearby city ordinances?
ReplyDeleteAdding the phrase "which results in an
ReplyDeleteadjudication of guilt or finding of
violation" to the definition of 'Enforcement Action' would cure much of the problem. The police chief objected that requiring convictions would reduce the utility of the ordinance. That is likely true, but it's always easier to use the power of law to coerce people if you do not have to wait for a finding of guilt.
We do have laws that could be and are sometimes used to address nuisance problems. My point here is that we shouldn't surrender liberty to address nuisances.
"How does this compare ..."
ReplyDeleteMy recollection is that this partially based on a Madison ordinance.
I guess I don't understand how the whole thing works as far as enforcement of ordinances. If I get a ticket from the buiding inspector for a violation, do I have the right to contest that in court?
ReplyDeleteSo, if I got my chickens and do not keep them neat.
ReplyDeleteThe city could charge with...whatever with/o due process.
The due process arguement is valid, but due process right have been eroding for years.
Private employees have no due process, but public do.
"If I get a ticket from the building inspector for a violation, do I have the right to contest that in court?"
ReplyDeleteSure, it's like getting a speeding ticket.
"Private employees have no due process, but public do."
Right. As you probably know, that is because the due process clause only applies to government action.
"Right. As you probably know, that is because the due process clause only applies to government action."
ReplyDeleteYea, I could have guessed that-I mean I know how you feel, but you are standing on cermony-here.
It seems the ends justify the means in many government decisions.
It does not mean I have to like it or vote for it, but why this one?