Here’s what the CCOC had to say . . . Housing takes it up tomorrow (or today/Wednesday) and PSRB has yet to act on it as well as the Community Services Commission. [At least that is what legistar says at the moment . . . it also doesn’t show EOC already acted, so I’m a bit confused. It seems CCOC was the first group to act on it, but that isn’t what Joel Plant from the Mayor’s office said.]
Clear moves approval, Schumacher seconds.
Bidar-Sielaff clarifies what the motion is – they says it is the original, not the alternate.
Zilavny (Asst. City Attorney) hands out an implementation summary (not available to the public or in legistar, so I posted it below), 8 properties were chronic nuisance premises, all have abated with the exception of the Highlander. In 2008 it was declared a nuisance and it got better. This past summer nuisance activity started heating up again. They strategized a new plan. Owner implemented some of the strategies. Eliminated a block long hedge about 6 feet tall between them and BP on Verona Rd. Many people were hiding in there with drug activity and they also blocked off access from Britta Parkway, which decreased traffic.
Bruer asks if the vast majority of the cases were abated with technical assistance? Zilavny says there are about 100 properties a year and they brainstorm, meet with 100 and declared 8 a nuisance, so our strategy works pretty well. Our position was that they would only use it in the worst cases and the numbers clearly show that is how the ordinance is working.
Compton asks about the meetings – the problems in her district have been essentially abated, but she asks about the 100 people Zilavny meets with, but what about the letters? Chief Wray explains that there is two different processes. [Great, the good alder loves and ordinance but doesn’t know what it does . . . sigh.] The letters are the drug nuisance abatement. There are also an additional 100 of those letters this year. Different statutes that have different remedies. Wray says that they only use one of the two strategies. [Note, Zilavny will contradict this later.] Captains met on this today. They say they can be proactive and pre-emptive. Compton says she is proud of the process, nonthreatening and educational and the landlords in her district are better. [I honestly don’t know if she knows what process she is talking about.]
Rummel asks about evictions or the things they were concerned about when the ordinance passed? Zilavny says she is aware of evictions, but hard to tell if it was directly related to this process. Only property was 1118 Petra where they evicted. [I find it odd that the one case I called her about was the only eviction in the city . . . ] Filed a drug nuisance as well. [See the contradiction I talked about.] Very clear three of the units actively involved. They were evicted, but at the same time, the property owner was trying to get out from under our radar.[Isn’t that what they are all doing?] Some of those tenants hadn’t paid rent in 6 months so they don’t know if it was the non-payment or the circuit court action. [The people who I saw getting evicted were not being evicted for being 6 months behind in rent.] Highlander did not evict, did other things.
Someone, I think Rummel asked about people not calling the police. Zilavny says that people weren’t afraid to call the police in those cases. [I missed part of that.]
Compton says that she had an example of several families that had people who should not have been there and the additional people left and that wasn’t a bad thing. There were no evictions, only reduction of occupants of the house that were illegal in the first place.[Yikes, my head hurts and I don’t even know where to begin with that statement. And I don’t know if she knows what she is talking about – is overoccupancy part of the chronic nuisance ordinance? These are the violations in the ordinance:
(d) “Nuisance Activities” means any of the following activities, behaviors or conduct:
1. An act of harassment as defined in s. 947.013, Wis. Stats.
2. Disorderly conduct as defined in Sec. 24.02, MGO or s. 947.01, Wis. Stats.
3. Crimes of violence as defined in ch. 940, Wis. Stats.
4. Resisting or obstructing an officer as prohibited by Sec. 5.06, MGO or s. 946.41, Wis. Stats.
5. Indecent exposure as prohibited by Sec. 26.01, MGO or s. 944.20(1)(b) Wis. Stats.
6. Damage to property as prohibited by Sec. 23.06, MGO. or s. 943.01, Wis. Stats. 7. The production or creation of noises disturbing the peace, as prohibited by Sec. 24.04, MGO.
8. Discharge of a firearm as prohibited by Sec. 25.06, MGO.
Page 3
9. Crimes involving illegal possession of firearms as defined in ss. 941.23, 941.26, 941.28, 941.29 and 948.60, Wis. Stats.
10. Trespass to land as defined in s. 943.13, Wis. Stats. or criminal trespass to dwelling as defined in s. 943.14, Wis. Stats, or unlawful trespass as prohibited in Sec. 23.07, MGO.
11. Obstructing a street or sidewalk, as prohibited by Sec. 10.23(1), MGO.
12. Theft as defined in s. 943.20, Wis. Stats.
13. Arson as defined in s. 943.02, Wis. Stats.
14. Depositing rubbish as prohibited by Sec. 10.17, MGO.
15. Keeping a place of prostitution as defined in or s. 944.34, Wis. Stats.
16. Loitering for the purposes of prostitution as prohibited by Sec. 26.08, MGO.
17. Loitering for purposes of soliciting prostitutes, as prohibited by Sec. 26.085, MGO.
18. Prostitution as prohibited by s. 944.30, Wis. Stats.
19. Soliciting prostitutes as prohibited by s. 944.32, Wis. Stats.
20. Pandering as prohibited by s. 944.33, Wis. Stats.
21. Loitering for purposes of soliciting prostitutes, as prohibited by Sec. 26.085, MGO.
22. Possessing an open container which contains alcohol beverages or consuming alcohol beverages upon any public street as prohibited by Sec. 38.07(7) of these ordinances.
23. Selling, offering for sale or giving away of any intoxicating liquors or fermented malt beverages without a license as provided in Sec. 38.05(1), MGO, or s. 125.04(1), Wis. Stats.
24. Possession, manufacture, distribution or delivery of a controlled substance or related offenses as defined in ch. 961, Wis. Stats.
25. Maintaining a drug dwelling as defined in Sec. 961.42 of the Wisconsin Statutes.
26. Illegal gambling as defined in s. 945.02, Wis. Stats.
27. Owning, keeping or harboring a dangerous animal, as defined in Sec. 25.22, MGO.
28. Violations of the Minimum Housing Code, as prohibited by Ch. 27, MGO.
]
Bruer asks if Department of Civil Rights received any complaints. Lucia Nunez says they took properties that Jennifer sited and found no matches with their complaints. [Duh, of course they didn’t, because there isn’t a process to complain about the chronic nuisance ordiance – its only for discrimination. Violations of tenant/landlord law are handled by filing in small claims court or complaining to the city attorney’s office. And since here, the complaint may be about the city attorney’s office, I doubt anyone would file a complaint there. This is painful to watch people getting bad information and not even knowing they are getting bad info.] Most of housing complaints have to do with failure to rent or terms and conditions. No common addresses of the chronic nuisance properties and the complaints they have.
Bruer says that the tool has had a tremendous impact in his neighborhoods of color [huh? what does this have to do with people of color?]and is instrumental in the quality of life and he got calls from constituents who wanted to show their support. This is technical support and information sharing. This is working so well that it is not reaching the official offices. He says that landlord voluntarily work amongst themselves to solve the problems. [Actually, I think he said more than that, but I wasn’t listening as it was mostly gratuitous crap.]
Nunez explained the EOC changes. [Very poorly.]
Rummel asks about the alternate.
Schumacher asks about the standing of the EOC process and he’s heard different stories about how this went through.
Bruer asks Zilavny to explain [not Nunez?]. How did the alternate come about? Ziilavny can’t clarify it. She says the ordinance was tabled at the spring council meeting and then the draft was made to eliminate the sunset provision. Nunez says at the last EOC meeting they came up with the 7 amendments that they came up with some time ago. [That’s more like it! kind of important information she left out the first time.] In addition, they added to extend the sunset and adding some recording requirements for the police to collect data, Alder Solomon worked with attorney’s office to get that in front of them.
Bruer brings Plant into the conversation and he says that he can only speak to the appeal language. He asked attorney and the 4 bodies were referred and all bodies have reviewed it and EOC is only body that recommended amendments. [Either he is lying through his teeth or something is wrong with legistar.]
Clear asks to clarify that housing didn’t take action and PSRC is lead. Schumacher agrees Housing hasn’t taken action.
Bidar-Sielaff asks Nunez about additional reporting, specifically data on race, ethnicity, gender and age of tenants. She asks if that is a problem or is it accessible. Wray answers the question, he says that if the data is requested as part of the eviction outcome, they will have some major challenges. Wray says that the way they are trained they don’t point out an outcome and say evict a person and alternatives are talked about and then somewhere down the line a property owner my non-renew. How do they track that?
Bidar-Sielaff says it is not data on evictions, data on tenants in the property. She says that is different. Nunez says it is a problem to think about landlords collecting that kind of information. They shouldn’t be collecting, they should be renting on an equal opportunity basis, having the landlords have the information is a problem. [I think there could be a way to gather the info that doesn’t violate fair housing law. The landlord could distribute and the info could be sent to the Department of Civil Rights. They could be creative and get the information.]
Zilavny says she could go knock on the door and get the information and that would be different.
Bidar-Sielaff points out that if police responded 10 times to a unit, they probably have a good idea about the people living in the apartment in question. Nunez says the EOC was looking to know who is impacted by this. She says it becomes challenging to collect it if a chronic nuisance, hard to collect that information.
Wray says also a challenge to collect the information over time.
Compton asks about the alternate. Compton says nothing broken, Nunez has no complaints [the ignorance is killing me!], she is looking for reasons to support substitute if they have an opportunity to pull it back at any time. She says the problem doesn’t exist. Why would we have the police do more work than they already do? Why add to that?
Nunez says they should look at the amendments they originally put forth (the alternate), the city attorney agrees with some of them and they see them as enhancements. There were additional things that the commission came forward with and that is for the council to debate. The collecting of data is difficult for the police to do, its not data that someone keeps. Look at the original 7 amendments and figure out what might work. She had to leave.
Zilavny says that with exception of the sunset, all of the changes were the same as before the council last spring. Her position remains the same as in the spring. Some don’t have an impact on their ability to use the ordinance, but there are others that do. (2)(a)2 she is opposed to – that would negatively affect her ability to use the ordinance. This is the search warrant issue vs. filing charges and they don’t have a relationship with DA. The DA decides when they charge and there have been times when the DA doesn’t charge after police have legally seized property and it is tough to get a search warrant. They have to have substantial information to show the judge – it is a tight controlled situation. The warrent is a totally legitimate basis to have as criteria for the ordinance. She knows of cases where DA has not charged and they have no influence over that. Also might take a long time. Basically the same argument under 2(c).
Rummel asks about difference between the two nuisance ordinances, Zilavny explains the notices required under the drug abatement process, its more restrictive in getting into circuit court and the cases can take a long time. Rummel asks about the 8 and how many revolved around probable cause vs. filed cases. Wray says ordinance is working, additional reporting is not necessary, at any given time council could ask for a report, but to cause that to happen (can be labor intensive), doesn’t finish sentence. May of these were the same ones we discussed last time. He thinks it is really positive and seems to be working and a good combination of working with citizens and haven’t had the adverse impact and should just continue as is.
Schumacher says he didn’t hear any problems, it is working and the only issue is if the sunset would be gotten rid of.
Bidar Sielaff would like to request an annual report. Every September. She says she wants to have something similar to the report they are looking at. That was friendly, Chief says if it doesn’t include eviction information, then they can’t do that. She is adding back in some appealed language.
Bidar-Sielaff/Compton exchange words about Bidar-Sielaff “sneaking something in” – She clarifies that they are talking about the repeal language and they are adding the report back in but striking language about evictions. Bruer once again rudely interrupts Bidar-Sielaff. Just repeal sunset sentence and item 3.
Wray says he is ok with that and that he will put the information in the annual report instead of stating what month it would be do. [i.e. they’ll never see it.] Clear ok with it being friendly. Compton claiming to have seconded. Some confusion, but it passes unanimously with a voice vote.
*****************************************
CHRONIC NUISANCE PREMISES ORDINANCE
Implementation Summary
Prepared by Assistant City Attorney Jennifer ZilavyA. Number of properties that have been declared Chronic Nuisance Premises (“CNP”): Eight. The “declaration” occurs when a letter is sent by the Madison Police Department (“MPD”), in accordance with the criteria set forth in the CNP ordinance, informing the premise owner that their property has been declared a Chronic Nuisance Premises.
1. 17 N. Wickham Court, (multi-unit apartment bldg.) declared December 2008
2. 902 West Badger Road, (multi-unit apartment bldg.) declared January 2008
3. 4353 W. Beltline Highway (motel – Highlander) declared July 2008
4. 2110/2114 Allied Drive, (multi-unit apartment bldg.) declared July 2008
5. 910 West Badger Road (multi-unit apartment bldg.) declared July 2008
6. 2638 East Lawn Court, (single family residence) declared September 2008
7. 2902 Hauk Street, (multi-unit apartment bldg.) declared September 2008
8. 1118 Petra Place (multi-unit apartment bldg.) declared October 2008B. Number of premises that have met with the Madison Police Department and Office of the City Attorney (“OCA”) in response to CNP declaration: Eight
C. Number of premises that entered into abatement plans with MPD/CA: Eight
D. Number of premises that made a good-faith effort to implement abatement plan: Five. 902 West Badger Road, 910 West Badger Road and 1118 Petra Place did not make good-faith efforts to implement abatement plans and were less than cooperative with MPD/OCA throughout the CNP procedure. All three of these properties are currently vacant. 910 West Badger Road and 1118 Petra Place were properties that, in addition to the CNP declaration, were subject to Drug Nuisance Actions in Dane County Circuit Court and have been ordered to remain vacant until “further order of the court.”
E. Number of premises where nuisance has completely abated: Six. 2110/2114 Allied Drive has recently begun to experience increased nuisance activity and is currently under evaluation for further enforcement action. 4353 W. Beltline Highway has improved, but has not completely abated. The owner of 4353 continues to cooperate with MPD and OCA.
F. Number of premises where cost recovery provision of ordinance was implemented: One. 902 West Badger Road for a shooting incident that resulted in deployment of the swat team. Cost Recovery bill was $13,000+. This premise was also prosecuted in municipal court for failure to timely submit abatement plan and for allowing additional nuisance activities on premise (forfeiture of $1200).
