NUISANCE Ordinance- 3 Strikes You're Out for Landlords

[stephen davis]

I really donít agree with this proposed ordinance. As I read Mary Anne Cramptonís post, I realized that we already have all of the laws needed to deal with offenders. We just need to enforce them. Repackaging existing ordinances into an omnibus law seems like opportunistic grandstanding by politicians.

I have had difficult neighbors that were very disruptive to quality living. Lakewood police did a pretty good job of enforcement after the whole neighborhood involved them regularly. They seemed to have all the tools they needed without piling on new laws.

I will admit that my aversion to more nuisance laws is contrary to my position to expand gun laws, but nobody is dieing yet from noise and urine.

Lastly, I donít see landlords having any easier time evicting noisy tenants than evicting perennial non-payers of rent. By enforcing this, our city might face jeopardy in lengthy and expensive legal battles defending this overkill proposal. I think it could be challenged by landlords and, unfortunately, by offenders.

[Ryan Patrick Demro]

The Good Neighbor Law passed unanimously at the city council meeting last evening. Two residents spoke on its behalf, including former Councilwoman Pam Smith. There were no opponents of the measure and no comments from members of city council.

[stephen davis]

ìGood Neighbor Lawî? Is that what that was called? Is that like ìClear Skiesî and ìNo Child Left Behindî. Pick an issue, highlight it, dress it up and repackage it with a solution thatís even more offensive than the problem.

I wish that Iíd been paying more attention earlier. I would have been a dissenting voice. Shame on me.

[Ryan Patrick Demro]

Steve,

It was previously called the Chronic Nuisance Law. Bob Seelie and I renamed it to avoid any bad press at the city council meeting. I know how many on this forum, especially Jim O'Bryan, take to the bad press about Lakewood. So that is the sole reason for the name change and it was done last week. Here we are today, no bad press.

As for your comments about the ordinance, the police chief was very involved with this ordinance and felt that it would give our PD an additional tool is fighting CHRONIC offenders. Chronic being the operative word here. Under existing ordinances they could only give tickets for the violation at hand, but if the violation is repeated and disrupts the neighborhood then there is no recourse. This law allows us to slap the chronic offenders a whole lot harder with existing law. It includes both residential and commercial properties, rental and owner occupied.

If you look at the evidence from other communities that have implemented it, Cleveland Heights, Shaker Heights, South Euclid, Milwaukee and Des Moines, you will find success. The police chiefs in the Cleveland suburbs will even testify to reduced workloads.

So on face it may look complicated or just another extension of government, but it is really a retooling of existing law to root out people who do not understand or do not care about our standard of living.

When you have worked on the legislation with various stakeholders for over a year you have a different perspective.

[stephen davis]

Ryan,

Des Moines has a unique set of problems. Their success in this arena may not be the benchmark that Lakewood should aspire to. The same could be said for Milwaukee, although to a lesser degree. We all know about the others mentioned.

When you have lived and worked in as many communities as I have, for my 50+ years, you have a different perspective. You tend to become a little more pragmatic, and a little less dependent on simple fixes and packaging.

My experience tells me that you should call a ìChronic Nuisance Lawî a ìChronic Nuisance Lawî. If it quacks like a nuisance law, it probably is just that. You canít dress it up as a ìGood Neighborî because we all know that you canít legislate good neighbors.

Also, this ordinance provides no weighting of the listed offenses against each other, i.e., whether three dogs at large should be as punishable as three biting dogs, or if one firework should equal one prostitution. This could be a problem down the road.

Iím sure council is well intentioned on this, and I know there is a well-deserved target market for this legislation. Good press will come from effective, thoughtful, AND honest, open, and fair government.

I hope this all works toward the intended results, and doesnít create unforeseen problems in Judge Carrollís, or any other court. I never want to say, ìI told you so.î

Steve

[Stephen Calhoun]

In my previous posting I asked,

What are the details in how such an ordinance comes to be enacted?

My question hasn't been addressed explicitly but I'm beginning to flesh out a sketch of process.

One of the interesting ways to think about local governance and lawmaking is to consider what makes for optimal lawmaking both as a matter of process and as a matter of widespread community consensus about what makes for good law. Obviously, one aspect of a good law is that such a law is one the citizenry positively endorses as being a constraint, setting a limit on their own behavior.

Mediocre-to-bad laws suffer from this lack of endorsement among other lacks.

Endorsement, a kind of 'buy-in,' follows from the time honored principle of consent of the governed. Law makers work for the governed and work to provide constraints on behavior that will be widely endorsed, i.e. consented to.

This should make clear how crucial it is for consent to be earned through the aforementioned process and through procedures for law making. That political processes at the federal level no longer work this way is example enough.

This is the background to my asking the question. Very few communities go out of their way to build a big table where all the implicated constitutencies can chew over new law. At the same time, very few communities are filled with a citizenry willing to spend much of their precious time engaged with the process of governance.

As I've mentioned to mates in Cleveland Heights, when councilpersons win election by gaining 15% of the votes of registered voters, winning in landslides, it is both a signal of opportunity and evidence of a depressing lack of civic engagement.

At the level of governance, in general, it would be the exception rather than the rule to build this table with all impacted constituencies sitting at it.

What can follow from this is that the problem never gets fully reasoned through as a matter of having available in the process of thinking, the entire range of viewpoints. In effect, problems get partly defined, and, the result is that they get partly solved.

***

This bundle of challenges looks completely different when civic intelligence is implemented in a sophisticated vision of civic engagement, and, the problem of citizens' participation is solved. I do not blame politicians at all. Citizens should insist on their own engagement as the most constructive platform for driving the community system of governance to where problems get fully reasoned out and smartly solved.

[Kevin Galvin]

I thought that I would offer some random thoughts as well as a perspective that possibly is not being considered. As some of you know, I retired from the Lakewood Police Departemnt approx. five years ago.

Concerns over people calling because of bar patrons using their yard as a toilet should be forgotten. This is not simply a case of a computer clerk seeing an address twice and having a letter sent out. This law would ALLOW the police to have the process begin.

From a police point of view, it is frustrating to repeatedly respond to the same home and cite the under 18 resident for loud music, late night noise and or other types of nuisance. knowing that nothing will result. The police officer leaves, but he knows that he has not solved the problem and perhaps has only made it worse for the neighbors who have called.

**Note: The vast majority of offenses, including most felonies, result in a juvenile being turned over to the parent. So you catch the neighbor kid inside your car, stealing your radio and you call the police. They get there and "arrest" the kid. They then walk him back next door and release him to their mother or father. The police reach the corner of your street and the kid is angry with you so he throws a rock through your car window and the process repeats itself. Do you think you might feel just a bit irritated with the situation.
Now add in the following facts, even though it may not be the politically correct thing to say. The house where this kid lives is section eight. The landlord, who lives in his 400K house in Strongsville would be screaming at his council person if the same family lived anywhere near him. The landlord is letting the house fall apart, staying just within the limits of the law. After all, the government is guaranteeing his rent and his attitude is why fix it up. The tenants will only destroy it and he can't raise the rent to make up for his expenditure.

I suppose I should give a brief explanation of how the process would unfold.
1-A juvenile is cited for an offense.

2-Several weeks later the juvenile and their parents are mailed a notce to appear in juvenile court.

3- Several more weeks go by and the family reports to juvenile court.

4-The kid pleads guilty and since the family has limited financial resources the penalty is community service and probation. If it happens that he is already on probation the referee* hearing the case extends the probation and increases the number of hours for community service. (*This is done because the assigned judge only hears felony 1 or 2 cases.)
It should also be noted that the family may ignore the call to court. If that happens, six or more months may go by before a warrnant is issued. That warrant is then placed in a drawer and it will be added to the next charge if the kid ever commits a crime that results in their being locked up.
Because of the workload of the juvenile court system in Cuyahoga County it takes a major crime for that to occur. I know from personal experience that we arrested two juveniles in a stolen car and they had a sawed off shotgun. I called the juvenile court that night and was told that the kids should be released to their parents. I reminded the intake officer that the kids were being charged with multiple felonies, including the gun. (At that time, a felony was all that was necessary for lock-up.) I was told that they were overcrowded and since the kids had not actually shot anyone, they should be released. This occurred over ten years ago so I would imagine that the workload is at least as bad now.

5-This particular juvenile finally reaches the court at the age of 17. Now the judge decides to hear the case because of pressure from the prosecutors or the numerous charges. The judge has 300-400 cases on their desk and decides that this kid is close enough to 18 that he will soon enough be the adult court's problem so he is placed on "house arrest" until he is 18.

NOW, let's imagine that the landlord knows about the problem becasue of this law. He is financially hammered for each offense after the 2nd. He will most likely not want that family in his house. Once he is finally able to evict them. (I agree that this is a pain in the neck, but as long as he shows the court that he is in the process, he is not going to be held liable.) When it comes time, he just might be a little bit more concerned about who rents it in the future.

Is this law a panacea for all problems? Absolutely not. Does it offer a sliver of hope to the resident who lives next to that problem house? I would certainly think so.

Although I occasionally disagree with Mr. Demro on a variety of issues, I believe that he is being responsive to his constiuents in this case. The law appears to have safeties in it to prevent the average, responsible, landlord from getting caught up by accident.

An aside to Jim O'Bryan. When people have an "annual" bash, it is sometimes not considered a success until the police arrive. Unless someone at the party is a complete moron, the first time the police arrive results in the owner being asked to keep it down. This assumes there is no underage drinking taking place. The 2nd arrival of the police generally
results in the owner being told that the 3rd time's a charm and they will be cited if the police return. Should that happen, the owner deserves the ticket since the police resources are being wasted by continually responding to the same place.

**For what it's worth, I always tried to make a point to people that they should invite the neighbors within ear shot. Even if they don't come to the party, they don't call the police as often.

Well, that's my two cents.

[Ryan Patrick Demro]

Kevin,
I appreciate your perspective. That is why this law took over a year to draft. We wanted testimony and input from those on the front lines, not those in the ivory towers. What you have written is consistent with what our own police chief told us and what chiefs from others cities told us.

[Donald Farris]

Hi,
The plight of the poor is always troubling. It is interesting to see how a city works to help the poor get along. As in the example you presented Mr. Galvin and your comment Councilman Demro, I see the city is really not as concerned with making the situation better for all involved as they are to force the problem to move. Where to? Who knows probably 2 doors down. Now the police will have more trouble tracking down problem people because they will probably be forced to move more often, further stressing their lives.

I wish instead of creating this law to punish the landlords for a problem that fustrates police, the city would have conducted some free seminars for landlords on how to select good tennants for their housing. The poor do need to live somewhere. Perhaps social services could get involved to see if some assistance could be provided.

I wonder in the case you presented Mr. Galvin, how much of the information on the bad under-age youth would be available for a landlord in the screening process. Councilman Demro, will the City Police be offering to do screening for the landlords of prospective tennants? Then the landlords would have some information on these "bad" people. Could the City be planning to offer a list to landlords of "bad" people? How would a "bad" person get off the list?

PS. I thank you Mr. Galvin for your years of service and your decision to live in Lakewood as well as work here. I would like to hear your views on residency requirements for various city workers, safety forces and school system employees.

[Ryan Patrick Demro]

Don,
I know we have very different views on economics, but one of the first things I was taught in Econ 100 was that there is no such thing as a free lunch. Nothing that the city offers can ever be free. No city employee, at least none that I am aware of, is willing to give his or her time to present a "free" seminar. I am not sure that they should have to either. Just to give you an example of how inflexible our city employees can be, let's use the example of Mary Louise Madigan's Late Night Lakewood proposal.

ML's proposal consisted of city employees staying late one night a week to do city business for the convenience of the public. This mirrors market changes over the last decade (ie;24 hour establishments). ML stated in her proposal that this would give employees the opportunity to have flex time, offering another benefit to employees who might have tough family schedules. Workers could come in later and stay later, etc. Then the secretary for the new ASFCME II union got up and cited some chapter and verse of the union contract that stated that any change in the work schedule required renegotiation of the contract and that would mean added costs. This meant that they would want a raise or other benefits in addition to this flextime proposal. In this case the union, organizations that liberals like you love so much, are acting as an impediment to providing better city services. This is a real shame.

So no service is free. What we are offering is a Certified Landlord Program. In the coming months, we will be posting on the city website a list of good landlords throughout the city. So if a prospective tenant is looking for a good place to live they can access our website as a resource. This will help to connect good people throughout the city. These landlords have to pass a building inspection and meet a higher standard than any old slum landlord. So we are providing a benefit as a city. As for a seminar, its a great idea, but times are tough right now.

[Stephen Calhoun]

We wanted testimony and input from those on the front lines, not those in the ivory towers.

...what a curious admission. 'Ivory Tower' is a euphemism for exactly what capability of analysis excluded from the process of writing the law?

I'd really like to know why that capability was excluded.

[Donald Farris]

Hi,
Councilman Demro, how much does the Certified Landlord Program cost the landlords?

Is that in any way related to the problem of "bad" tennants?

PS. I believe, you Councilman Demro, are also a teacher, I would like to hear your views on a residency requirement (see other thread).

[Ryan Patrick Demro]

Don,
My understanding is that the cost of the Certified Landlord Program is included in the new fee structure for housing and building permits. So there will be no fee or additional cost for a landlord to participate per se.

I don't really know that this is related to bad tenants. I assume bad tenants probably would not be using this program or accessing the net to find out who the good landlords are, but I could be wrong.

I will weigh in on the residency requirement in the other thread.

[Lynn Farris]

Don can certainly speak for himself, but while I consider myself pro-union, I will concede like every organizations they sometimes bite off their nose to spite their face, and this is one of those times.

I think the flex-time proposal would have helped many people in the union as well as job sharing. I know of an excellent employee who moved to the private sector, because of the lack of flexibility. She begged to pay for her own benefits or a portion of them if she could just work part time. With both men and women sharing child care duties and working, this is important.

And it would have meant better city services, you are right. Win/Win in my book.

I do have mixed emotions about the landlord issues.

And I know there are bad landlords, but their are good ones too, who sometimes get in a situation which is difficult. Their are bad neighbors too who call the police for every little thing, when it should be dealt with in a call to the neighbor.

If a teenager plays their music loud, isn't it the parents responsibility to tell them to turn the music down? We expect everyone to be responsible except the people that really are. Ryan, you know we expect the schools to solve many of the social ills that are parents responsibiltiy, now we are expecting landlords to control someone's kids. Landlords are often in a catch 22 situation where laws are writen to protect the tenants rights and the landlord has a tough situation. JMHO

[Mary Anne Crampton]

The Late Night Lakewood concept proposed by Mary Louise Madigan is not dead. At the May 2 meeting where her letter outlining the concept was read, I reminded City Council how easy it is shoot down a good idea.....as the union rep did......and how hard it is to execute one. It will take persistance, creativity and determination to make this happen. This is an idea that is good for Lakewood. It is worth advocating for. If you have insights into the union challenge, Lynn, I'm sure Mary Louise would appreciate your input.

Mary Anne