The Equal Opportunities Commission was shut out of the original process, promised that they could have their say and asked to report back to the council, then when it comes back, people decide its not the right time. How does that saying go “justice delayed is . . .”
EARLY PUBLIC COMMENT
Carousel Bayrd came to the meeting, she was supposed to home on bed rest, but here to talk about the Chronic Nuisance Ordinance representing the Equal Opportunities Commission. They had 7 recommendations, 4 are not contested and affirmed by city attorney.
– (3)(a)6. and 3(b)3.b. When landlord has to come up with remedies to solve the problem, they can only evict if there are no other alternatives . Can’t evict if there are feasible alternatives.
– (6)(a) Expands retaliation protection beyond those (and their families) who are evicted, but also to those who are not evicted. The protection is for those who call the police or on whom the police were called but are not evicted and continue to live on the property..
– (6)a. Removes the language that allows the landlord to non-renew in retaliation. The removal of this language just says that the landlord can non-renew a lease for any reason except retaliation or discrimination.
Other pieces
Carousel also talked about one of the changed that she felt was important that the city attorney opposed:
– (3)(b)2. – She says that there should not be an exception that allows discretion to decide if domestic abuse cases qualify as a nuisance action. She says it will have a chilling effect. She says the loophole is a problem, not necessarily with this staff, but it could have a chiling effect.
[Note: Carousel testified early, the council dealt with several other issues and then they went back to this issue.]
MOTION
Jed moves to place on file.
PUBLIC TESTIMONY
Tom McKenna – Orchard Ridge
Says the original ordinance has real teeth to go after bad landlords. The bad landlords were not proactive in going after violence, prostitiuion, drug deals. There has been no misuse of the ordinance. It has only been used 8 times. Says if you must tinker with the ordinance, please follow the report of the City Attorney’s office. [Making policy again!] He says she makes a persuasive argument of what to change and what not to change. Use that as your guideline. Points out the ordinance repeals itself 5 months from now. Asked them not to spend alot of time on this now, do an up and down vote and more on to more important things.
Lisa Subeck – In opposition
Opposes amendments, lives on SW side of town, struggles with challenging situations, dealt with incredible challenges and credits the ordinances, plus other factors for changes in the neighborhood. Landlords have something over thier heads and it is changing their behavior. She says she looked at the changes as a resident and someone who used to be a landlord who dealt with challenging populations. Extremely hesitent to have actual charges by DA, this is about behavior, doesn’t care if filed charges, what she cares about is the police calls. Talks about an apartment by her and says it was a nuisance and made her feel unsafe. Multitude of police calls shows a pattern of behavior. She says she thinks EOC is trying to protect people with a criminal background. This isn’t about innocent until proven guilty. This is about problems in the neighborood and this ordingnace gives teeth to that. If they require charges it may mean waiting months. Domestic Violence issue is a tough one for her. She thinks people should feel comfortable to call police, doesn’t think this ordinance changes that – doesn’t care if it is Domestic Violence or other noise, if the police are called its a nuisance. She says, as her grandma says “If it aint broke don’t fix it.”
Nancy Jensen, AASCW registered but I didn’t hear if it was in support or opposition. Likely opposition.
DISCUSSION
Solomon – Wants to set the record straight about the EOC and says people are re-writing history. Reminds people what happened. Mayor came to EOC and asked them not to act, because the ordinance was still under review and getting redrafted. The final draft came out and EOC didn’t get to act, they never got to see the ordinance. Solomon pushed for referral back to EOC for that reason. EOC is getting their chance to look at the ordinance. He says the reason it took so long is his fault. He met with City Attorney’s office and tried to figure out language to address needs of both sides. [What? Negotiating with the city attorney’s office on a policy to come up with something they can agree to? Anyone find that odd?] He says an effort was made. EOC would have had it done months ago. This is not EOC rewriting history – they should have had this opportunity in the first place.
Solomon talks about the three concerns that the city attorney’s office has:
– (2)(a)2. EOC wanted a higher burden of proof when determining that a property is a Chronic Nuisance Property. He said there should at least be charges filed instead of just an arrest or police call. He says if there is a reason why charges aren’t filed, might that not be a reason not to make the property a Chronic Nuisance Property? He says we should use the same standard.
[Note, the city attorney’s memo says that this higher burden of proof is problematic because “The judge has to be presented with sufficient facts and must have a substantial basis for believeing that probable cause exists.” Pesky facts, who need ’em? Apparently not the city attorney’s office.]
– (2)(c) Required charges to be filed Second change, arrest or referral of charges with no charges filed. City Attorney concerned about enforcement by an independent agency. Flip side is the same arguement he just made. He wants the ordinance to be a useful tool. But it should be parallel to our justice system standards.
-(3)(b)2. Domestic Abuse issue. He says Carousel spoke well to it. Doesn’t know why you’d have that exception. Talks to Allied Drive residents about safety and security and lots of people are afraid to call the police. Why would we have that chilling affect, its already a problem. These three changes are reasonable, understands why City Attorney has concerns, but he reminds people EOC didn’t tear this apart, they supported it.
Schumacher – supports place on file. Sunset is chance to revisit. Was initially skeptical of ordinance but used it in his district. A new owner of property that had problems and he said just raising the fact that there was an ordinance made them realize that the city has become more serious about these issues. Urges people to keep it as is, changes don’t add value and when it comes to filing charges, DAs office is understaffed and many crimes don’t end up with charges being filed and doesn’t want community to lose out.
Bruer – Solomon deserves battle pay. He shares history [or at least his version]. This ordinance was considered d.o.a., former alder who said that it could never come back from the dead, another said it would be nothing short of a miracle if it passed – (Palm says he was a little more blatant than that) Bruer agrees but says he was being tactful. He says that they went through a number of meetings – 2 – 3 in support in the beginning but ended up with overwhelming support at the end. Appreciates that EOC didn’t get to say what they wanted. Neighborhoods are in support of this. Apt Assoc in support. Protections built in. Domestic Violence groups said they ere ok with it and in support of it. He says this protects the quality of life of the constituents and neighborhoods. There were concerns about how it would be used, said if even remote undercurrent of abuse it would be repealed. He says the sunset was there for a reason and says they can talk about it at sunset time. He says there hasn’t been one complaint on how this is being used. Said he would bring it back if he heard complaints [guess I need to talk to Alder Bruer] He says he could have filled chambers wilth supporters but discouraged people from doing that. He says in due respect to EOC, vote to place it on file and it will come back in 60 to 90 days and EOC will be able to respond then and be in the process. He says we’ll bring in the community at that time. He says they built in the protections EOC wanted – some of the things they were asked to address were in the original framework. At the end of the day, what is the problem with waiting 90 days and we can assess and evaluate. If there have been downsides, he’d like to see them and hear them. Support placing on file and looks forward to working together to work with committees, commissions and board and take it up later. Don’t amend and tinker until all committees have had a chance to look at again.
Sanborn – wants to make sure people know how important this is. There is a sunset. We can address concerns then. Some of the provisions recommended severely water down the ordinance, but some others water it down in lesser ways. In response to Alder Solomon, why not have the same standards? the answer is because the chronic nuisance isn’t targeting them for trial and jail time, they are going after the owners and the poor job they are doing and that is why we have a different standard. Says it is an important difference. We have a criminal code and we wouldn’t need a chronic nusiance ordinance if that took care of the problems. [i.e. the police can’t jail people, so lets take away their homes instead? And we can do it with less effort.]
Clausius – supports place on file, with due respect to Solomon. No criticism or complaints on the ordinance. Dramatic testimony about how well it works. Says there was a subtle inference that it will lead to discrimination. Ask if any complaints – Lucia Nunez says they submitted a report to Mayor and leadership in November or October, no matches with housing complaints. Just took a look at additional properties and no new cases on that match the properties where it was used. [That’s crazy, if there were complaints, they likely would not be filed with the EOC – plus people are notorious for not filing complaints in housing because they are too busy looking for new housing.] Clausius says if sunset in 5 months, just place on file.
Palm – unsure – one thing we could do is re-refer to committees then use the ordinance with the recommended changes as the basis for considering the changes and the sunset at the same time. Presumes that we will continue with the ordinance. No one is talking about any other changes. Why not have this as the basis for the future change that we have. Would not throw out what is already done. No need to recreate and put back through the committees – it would be more logical to refer to different committees with changes to sunset provision and then come back as the reauthorization.
RHODES-CONWAY SUBSTITUTE MOTION
Rhodes-Conway – On the principle placing it on file is adding insult to injury. We did injure our public process when we ignored the EOC. We did get something good with the ordinance, where applied the ordinance was done well and had a positive impact. We specifically asked EOC and told them not to worry and said that we would listen to them. Its insulting to the committee to ignore them now. Open to Palm’s suggestion to refer and use this as a basis for future work.
She moves a substitute to accept the four changes that the City Attorney has no objections to. [Should be non-controversial right? Wrong.] She suggested that the other three recommended changes should be discussed with sunset and that they could introduce those three changes at the next council meeting.
SANBORN AMENDMENT TO RHODES-CONWAY SUBSTITUTE MOTION
Sanborn amends it to take 2 of the 4 amendments out. The 3(b)3.b. and second 6a change. Says he is ok with the retaliaiton issue, just not when it comes to automatic renewals of leases.
Kerr asks for clarification. Mayor says city attorney understands it.
City attorney says – The montion not is the 7 recommendations by EOC, minus the three that the City Attorney’s office had issues with, minus (3)(b)3.b. removed and the second (6)(a) provision. Confusion ensues again . . . Kerr says its crazy . . . basically, 2 of the seven changes are to be approved (3)(a)6. (eviction) and the first change to (6)(a) (retaliation).
Sanborn speaks to amendment. He thinks the two he picked out waters down the ordinance. Many reasons why you wouldn’t renew a lease. Also, second change takes choices away from the landlord. Other changes are worthwhile and don’t water down the ordinance.
Solomon – doesn’t agree. Asks them to read (3)(b)3.b. carefully. Wants eviction to be the last possible strategy. Still supports the ordinance. Eviction just creates another problem. Its not like people just disappear from the planet, creates homelessness or makes parents drag children around place to place. If eviciton is the sole remedy, do it. If can’t find alternative, do it. Reminds them that the city attorney’s office is ok with this change. Doesn’t agree that this creates a standard that failure to renew is automatically considered retaliation . . . it just doesn’t speak to it at all, leaving it up to the courts to decide. Both of the changes are good additional protections but don’t water down the ordinance.
Schumacher – will support the amendment to put this to rest, otherwise won’t support substitute. Still not clear what problem they are trying to solve. No EOC problems, police say that it works – why are we changing something that is working well and we have a sunset. Its just an ideaological issue. Still want to place on file and wait for sunset.
Cnare asks if the two issues make a difference – City attorney says ordinance as it exists works. 4 changes didn’t think made a substantial difference. Adopting 2 of the 4 also doesn’t make a substantial difference.
Bruer – says this is a solution chasing after a problem. In reality, in next 90 days we’ll go through the whole committee process. People are worried about due process, can’t appreciate shear numbers of people who support this across the city. The accusation was that it would be wholesale use of the ordinance, but says that the proof in the pudding. Says landlords have had a change in perspective or change in approach to dealing with issues. Part of him says to vote against, in reality it doesn’ t make any sense. Not trying to fix anything. Going after a ghost, closeted ghost when it came forward. Changes are inocuous, why are we doing this at 10:00 tonight without a broader discussion? EOC was punished for taking too long. Solomon battered and beaten on this, at the end of this, and if vote down the and then plac eon file, istn’ that more rational as public process. We talk about due process and the fact that the report is before you speaks to the hard work – many of us are supporters of civil rights and social economic justice – sunset there so they can come back so it can be evaluated. No negative impacts, deterance factor, and downtown alders I’d be sensitive to the issues to the decay of housing stock in central city and seeing alarming trends starting to emerge and not surprised if we won’t see this used in the central city. A solution chasing after a problem. Vote down both, place on file, extend a olive branch, understands whyeoc concerned, had legitimate concern, why change it tonight at 10:10. Vote down both. [Ugh, you kinda just got his stream of consciousness there cuz I didn’t feel like taking the time to clean it up and make it readable. It is essentially what he said.]
Kerr says this is a rare moment where she agrees with Bruer not Solomon. She says she is a strong support of EOC getting a crack at this, but agrees the process was bad. Vote both down, then interested alders can bring it forward after the sunset. Vote it down, but is expecting that next time this comes around EOC is a full participant in the process. Lets not repeat the mistake.
Sanborn, supports placing it on file, only offered the amendment to the substitute. Preference is yes on amendment, no on subsitute, yes on place on file. [Again, good signaling to those who might not be paying attention.]
Rhodes-Conway – asks the City Attorney if underlying motion were to pass tonight, how long before can bring back the same language. He says 60 days. She concludes that the proper motion is to place on file without prejudice.
Pham-Remmele – Is frustrated, says they are looking for more problems, remembers when working on it alot of time, discussion and revision and is in the works, so i know that we are collecting data for neighborhood indicators there is no reason at this time to stop and change and modify. Speaks on behalf of the renters, landlords, homeowners and families who are being affected by negative activities in the neighborhood, a tool like this is not perfect but it helps enforcement but it makes people see there needs to be respoect. In 1975 was a mother with child with little income, all she could stay at was Cypress and even at that time it was infested with cimrinal activites and it was painful to see my 4 year old child see bad behaviors, room vibrating above her. This can make quality of life better, those who can afford move into a new place, move, but those who cannot have to put up with this daily. So when she sees that attempt to weaken and change the ordinace, they panic, we are trying to make people comfortable, does respect city attorneys and police officers and landlords who are working very hard in cooperation with us to provide service of housing to help us. Talks about a bag of beans, one might be rotten, need to separate the bad to protect the rest – don’t waste more time, sunset and wait til then, move on.
Roll Call on Sanborn Amendment to Rhodes-Conway Substitute
AYE: Cnare, Compton, King, Palm, Sanborn, Schumacher, Skidmore
NO: Solomon, Verveer, Bidar-Sielaff, Clausius, Clear, Eagon, Kerr, Maniaci, Pham-Remmele, Rhodes-Conway, Rummel
Bruer originally passed, but voted No.
Fails 7 -13
No further discussion.
Roll Call on Substitute by Rhodes-Conway
AYE: Solomon, Verveer, Palm, Rhodes-Conway, Rummel
NO: Bidar-Sielaff, Bruer, Clausius, Clear, Cnare, Compton, Eagon, Kerr, King, Maniaci, Pham-Remmele, Sanborn, Schmidt, Schumacher, Skidmore.
Fails 5 – 15
They were back to the main motion to place it on file. Rhodes-Conway amends it to place on file without prejudice so they don’t have to wait 60 days to consider the EOC amendments.
No discussion
Roll call passes 18 0 2 with Rhodes-Conway and Rummel voting no.
[This was painful to watch, there were so many misunderstandings about the criminal justice system and tenant-landlord issues. Not to mention the butchering of the history with the EOC being snubbed in the first place and then calling this a due process issue. Yes, it was adding insult to injury.]
