This weekend I enjoyed unseasonably warm and beautiful weather.
The Illini won.
Today I recieved the below email from a Chamber friend.
I called this friend and found out that the Chamber has been working proactively to fight another silly Urbana idea. I learned they even had all the city council members to the Chamber to discuss concerns.
I read the proposed ordinance and laughed out loud.
I was told to read Sunday's editorials in the N-G and read an amazing piece by a gentleman named Kip Pope who apparently has been working with the Chamber's task force on the issue. I could not find this online.
The Chamber's email:
The Urbana City Council will be discussing the Chronic Criminal Nuisance Property Ordinance at its Monday, November 9 Committee of the Whole meeting. The ordinance is an attempt by the city to end crime on "troubled" properties in certain neighborhoods, however, encompasses every piece of property including parks, public buildings, apartments, private residences, schools, and local businesses. The ordinance (click here):
Will hold property owners responsible and accountable for the criminal acts of others with hefty fines;
Give the City unprecedented authority over your property, including the right to shut down your business;
Give Urbana officials the ability to "pick and choose" how they apply the ordinance and who they enforce it on;
Is hypocritical due to the landlords inability to properly screen tenants with criminal history due to the City's Human Rights Ordinance;
Is based on three police reports in a one your period and not criminal convictions resulting in no due process; and,
Is redundant because through normal police authority police can already arrest criminals who perpetrate serious crimes in the first place.
The Champaign County Chamber of Commerce, the Central Illinois Apartment Association, and the Champaign County Association of REALTORS® are working together to stop this ordinance. The associations would like to work with city council members on finding a solution that makes sense and truly goes after the individuals who perpetrate these criminal acts instead of the law abiding, tax paying property owners.
To make your voice heard, please join us at tonight's Urbana City Council meeting:
Urbana City Hall
400 South Vine Street
Urbana
Time: Monday, November 09, 2009 at 7pm
If you can not make it tonight and would like to voice your opposition, please contact your city council member and the mayor by clicking here.
I have long been frustrated by my feeliing that this community lacks an effective business lobby. It appears the Chamber is FOR REAL!
If it ends up that I'm not dreaming, I'm absolutely going to contribute to this Business Empowered PAC that sent the email. It kills me that I'm not going to be able to support this effort at tonight's council meeting due to a scheduling conflict, but I'm going to TIVO it for sure.
God Bless America.
Thanks B for this posting. This ordinance proposal is criminal! I agree with your comments concerning the Chamber of Commerce. They have stepped to the plate on several issues in the past six months.
Sounds to me like they're just taking Obama's lead, stripping small business into non-existence. Control is key.
I have read the ordinance. Nothing bothers me about it.
For a property owner to be fined, s/he must not cooperate in solving the problem
Can anyone construct a convincing scenario where this ordinance could be misused from a property owner's perspective ?
Michael Fuerst
Go here for Urbana postage stamps, T-shirts and bumper stickers:
http://bozourbana.org/wordpress/?page_id=3
Change will not come if we wait for some other person or some other time. We are the ones we've been waiting for.-Obama
This reminds me of the policy of many other countries that will punish families for the wrongdoing of other family members. This however is even worse. We are going to punish people not even related to the criminals.
Section B.5 is interesting. So the city will require property owners to break rental agreements without even a 10-day notice to occupants.
Section C... if I own a business and someone is dealing drugs in my parking lot I can be required to take unspecified security measures at my cost.
I suspect that most of the cities parks would be considered nuisance properties.
I don't think (though I don't know) that Urbana Council members sit around all day thinking of ways to take away property ownership rights. There must be a reason for this bill so my question is what property owner is not currently working with the city of Urbana and why not?
Surely, there is a better way of dealing with the situation then holding a huge club over the head of every property owner.
I don't have a problem with the ordinance, EXCEPT for the fact that Urbana refuses to let property owners properly screen their tenants. It is entirely ridiculous that a property owner can't refuse to rent to a tenant with a lengthy criminal history, but then they will possibly be held responsible for that tenant when the tenant continues their criminal ways.
"For a property owner to be fined, s/he must not cooperate in solving the problem."
This is so funny. Yeah, solve the "problem".. like there is a leaky pipe or something in the house. Don't mis-characterize what is required of property owners. They will be required to somehow prevent renters from committing crimes, potentially putting their safety and property at risk, or face lawsuits if they try to evict the renter.
I can just picture it... knock knock... "Hello Mr. drug dealer. It's come to my attention that there have been some complaints about your activity around here. You know, if you keep it up, I can get into a lot of trouble, so if you wouldn't mind stopping all the illegal activity? Great, thanks." "Oh, damn, I'm so sorry Mr. landlord! I knew I could bet busted for dealin, but I had no idea you might be on the hook as well. My bad. I'll stop dealin and take some adult education classes at Parkland." Yeah, it will happen just like that.
I don't have a problem with the ordinance, EXCEPT for the fact that Urbana refuses to let property owners properly screen their tenants. It is entirely ridiculous that a property owner can't refuse to rent to a tenant with a lengthy criminal history, but then they will possibly be held responsible for that tenant when the tenant continues their criminal ways.
I did wonder if such an ordinance might encourage some landlords to find ways of not renting to tenants they considered higher-risk.
This is exactly the reason I left having rental properties in Urbana.....they insist you rent to rapists and other felons and criminalize the landlord. I had to re-read the ordinance twice to make sure I was reading this correctly......why do I have to rent to felons if it is my owned property?
From the City of Champaign Municipal Code:
Sec. 22-802. Aggravated public nuisance.
(a) Nuisance defined. An "aggravated public nuisance" is:
(1) A dwelling;
(2) Where the owners or occupant of the dwelling conduct or commit the following activities within a dwelling unit, on the premises of a dwelling, or within one hundred (100) feet of the property line of the premises of the dwelling of which the owner or occupant has control within a three hundred sixty-five-day period:
a. Two (2) or more forcible felonies (as defined by the Illinois Criminal Code); or
b. Two (2) or more State or Federal criminal offenses related to the illegal sale, possession or manufacture of controlled substances, cannabis or drug paraphernalia; or
c. Two (2) or more violations of Section 23-113 of Chapter 23 of the Municipal Code, entitled "Prostitution"; or
d. Two (2) or more violations of Section 23-114 of Chapter 23 of the Municipal Code, entitled "Solicitation"; or
e. Two (2) or more violations of Section 23-115 of Chapter 23 of the Municipal Code, entitled "Keeping a place of prostitution"; or
f. Two (2) or more violations of Section 23-127 of Chapter 23 of the Municipal Code, entitled "Gambling prohibited generally"; or
g. Five (5) or more of any combination of the following:
1. Any of the offenses described in paragraphs a., b., c., d., e., and f. above;
2. Any of the following offenses as defined in the Illinois Criminal Code: disorderly conduct; battery; assault; aggravated assault; criminal damage to property; domestic battery; mob action; unlawful use of weapons; or
h. Five (5) or more violations of Section 21-14 of Chapter 21 of the Municipal Code regulating noise within or on the premises of a single dwelling unit.
(b) Violation. No owner of real property shall recklessly, knowingly, or negligently allow or permit an aggravated public nuisance or allow or permit an aggravated public nuisance to exist upon real property or part thereof, including individual dwelling units, owned by that person.
(C.B. No. 2005-284, § 1, 11-15-05)
Three Score and Ten Plus One
Keith Hays
This is exactly the reason I left having rental properties in Urbana.....they insist you rent to rapists and other felons and criminalize the landlord. I had to re-read the ordinance twice to make sure I was reading this correctly......why do I have to rent to felons if it is my owned property?
Please cite the ordinance which you believe requires you to rent to rapists and other felons. No owner has ever been been taken to task by Urbana for refusing to rent to a felon. The requirement is meaningless. A legal reason to deny the lease can always be found. Every conviceted felon I have had contact me to rent place I have rejected because of inadequate income or a lack of recent rental history
Michael Fuerst
Go here for Urbana postage stamps, T-shirts and bumper stickers:
http://bozourbana.org/wordpress/?page_id=3
Monday evening, the Urbana City Council at 10:45pm or so, decided to reject the proposed ordinance, and revisit the issue after the first of the year, using a draft ordinance based on Champaign's similar ordinance, authored by Messrs. Smyth and Bowersox, as a starting point. Only Ms Stevenson voted against the motion for this.
Michael Fuerst
Go here for Urbana postage stamps, T-shirts and bumper stickers:
http://bozourbana.org/wordpress/?page_id=3
Keith, thanks for posting the Champaign ordinance and bringing it to our attention that Champaign's ordinance focuses on a "dwelling" and not a property. This is a huge difference between the current Champaign ordinance and (formerly) proposed Urbana ordinance.
Michael, the law is written in Urbana so that a landlord essentially is not even allowed to perform a background check. The argument and further suggestion at last night's council meeting that you can typically find other legitimate reasons (such as credit check) is an argument that doesn't address the legitimate concern. "Every convicted felon I have had contact me to rent place I have rejected because of inadequate income or a lack of recent rental history” Do you reject everyone with inadequate income or lack of rental history or do you exclusively discriminate against convicted felons (a protected class in Urbana)? How do you know they were convicted felons?
In hypothetical scenario, your property can become subject to the (formerly) proposed ordinance with three police reports. A property owner can be asked by the city to hire a certified security guard to patrol a nuisance property to prevent people from congregating, dealing drugs, etc. Even though you are a good landlord and installed security lights and even put in a video surveillance system, you might think the request for security guard is excessive and costly. You say no and the city initiates the process (the details of this I'm not too sure about from reading the ordinance) and you can be fined up to $750/day and at the very least have to pay significant legal fees to fight off the city even if you are found innocent in court. That sucks.
In a hypothetical scenario, a Property Owner does not agree with the city and Great Property Manger, Inc. (a good manager) does not get the blessing from the owner to implement proposed changes. According to the (formerly) proposed ordinance, Property Manager, Inc. is subject to a fine of $750/day and is under contract to manage the property for the owner and faces likely additional costs from trying to break the contract. Ultimately, this would be a disincentive for Great Property Manager to manage properties in Urbana where their quality services are needed the most.
In a hypothetical scenario, a property owner has tenants on a property that live in a dwelling/unit that has subject to a police complaint. Great Property Manager, Inc. has a natural incentive to evict the tenant even though they may not even be the perpetrator of the nuisance complaint. It could even be the victim of domestic violence. While Great Property Manager, Inc was simply trying to avoid getting labeled a nuisance property, the evicted person is complaining (with good reason) to the Tenants Union and the property manager and/or property owner has a potential lawsuit on their hands.
In an actual scenario, tenants have guests over to their property who cause nuisances and generate police reports (the triggering factor for a nuisance property). Landlords attempt to ban those who cause the nuisance and they are told that they can't do that because of concerns about tenant’s rights.
I’m a bit baffled…this broad and sweeping proposal aimed at addressing a small number of property owners would be an ideal candidate for the “Bozo” label. Last night several liberal council members seemed to agree (with the help of the Chamber) that the proposed ordinance was deeply flawed. I’m very curious if Michael still feels that “nothing bothers me about this.”
Does anyone have a copy of the Chamber’s analysis that was provided to council? Maybe Michael will change his mind like the council members did.
If I missed in the postings above, I apologize, but does anyone know the specific source of this brain child? Just curious.
"If I missed in the postings above, I apologize, but does anyone know the specific source of this brain child? Just curious."
This was a priority of Mayor Prussing. I heard reports that Prussing cancelled a meeting with the Chamber once the Chamber indicated they could not support the proposed ordinance in its current form, after the Chamber Board of Directors voted unanimously (I confirmed this) to oppose the ordinance.
It seems there is serious disconnect between a neighborhood task force and Mayor Prussing. So maybe there was a business or landlord on the taskforce, but that doens't mean they support the ordinance. Other than Michael Fuest, I'm curious if there is any landlord that feels this is reasonable. I couldn't believe that Council Member Diane Marlin was making it clear that the neighborhood task force did not write the ordinance...if that doesn't tell you something.
Oddly, I heard that the Tenant Union was opposed to this because it created an unfavorable incentive for landlords to evict tenants. In a odd twist, it seems the proposed ordinance was so bad, that the landlords, realtors association, apartment association, and Chamber agreed with the Tenant Union. If that doesn't tell you something...
I'm getting more updates by email about how big of a deal this is and how inolved the Chamber was in working professional and constructively with the City of Urbana. Let's just say I'm impressed on many fronts.
Kudos to the Urbana City Council. Last night was a victory for common sense.
I watched a bit of this last night--what problem is the City trying to solve? A specific kind of crime? Overall crime in general? I understand people aren't concerned about enforcement because it depends on cooperation between the city and the owner, but what do you do if the city makes an unreasonable demand, and when you say no, they tell you you're being uncooperative. Their Human Rights Ordinance, I believe, prohibits landlords from refusing to rent to convicted criminals--what does a landlord do if they have children in the building but a convicted sex offender applies for tenancy? Pick the suit they want to defend?
"I watched a bit of this last night--what problem is the City trying to solve?"
There are a few properties that promote criminal activity by ingoring it and/or neglecting to prevent it. According to the proposed ordinance, you can identify these properties by three police complaints. The city and the property can work together to stop neglecting (and start addressing) crime on a particular property, and the city will determine what is reasonable at that time, but isn't providing any examples at the moment.
You are going to have the same people who wrote the ordinance determining what is reasonable, unless they defer it to the police chief.
If you implement the city's proposal to address the crime on your property, it will likely mitigate the criminal behavior and benefit the community.
My questions is what is a property manager typically expected to do and not expected to do? It is scary that you might have a professional politician or lifelong government professional with little real world business experience determining what is "reasonable". Rather than get into a debate over their ability to do so, I'd just prefer to see the guidelines in writing and in advance. The designers of the proposed ordinance clearly lack the important perspective I'm hoping for, even though they alledgely had a landlord on the neighborhood saftey task force. You will achieve better government by engaging the business community to solve problems, not just ask for feedback on your ideas and then get upset when they are not too excited about your plan.
Concerning November 10th, 2009 at 06:13 AM, B is for Business :
Maybe Michael will change his mind like the council members did.
Actually I did after noting Corben's remark above
and re-reading that section of the ordinance. At last night's meeting, I was the last public speaker concerning the ordinance stating that the ordinance as written requires the owner of any property with three police reports to meet with city staff to create an abatement plan, but does not address what happens if the owner and staff cannot agree on appropriate measures. I specifically pointed out the convenience store on Washington, east of Philo, which several years ago was asked to hire a security guard.
At the council meeting I fear I was in the video camera's view for more time than other attendee.
Michael Fuerst
Go here for Urbana postage stamps, T-shirts and bumper stickers:
http://bozourbana.org/wordpress/?page_id=3
"Actually I did after noting Corben's remark above"
Very nice!
Actually, I'm pretty sure a nuisance property represenative only has to meet with city staff if the city staff asks. I suspect there would many properties with at least three police reports, but only a select few would get the customized treatement from the city staff.
Bozo, I watched on TV and you were the star of the evening. Now that you have stated in a televised public forum that Urbana is the best place to start a new business, can we expect your tiresome letters to the N-G to cease? BTW, you should be somewhat knowledgable about the topic of concern when you speak in public. I checked out the Menard's links from your website and it is easy to see that the Menard's stores that opened in 2009 all opened in the first several months of 2009 and would have been well under actual construction long before the economic collapse last September. Menard's has put other projects on hold, so your attempt to portray Urbana officials as duplicitous and incompetent was pretty lame
Also, Menards officials have met recently with city officials about an Urbana store. They are planning to start building new stores again and are very pleased that Urbana officials were able to secure $2.5 million in state capital funds to improve Illinois 130 near where their store would go.
so your attempt to portray Urbana officials as duplicitous and incompetent was pretty lame
No. Menards bought the Urbana land in 2005. Putting up a store takes 9 months or so. Menards has chosen to build in multiple places other than Urbana since 2005. Why didn't/couldn't Urbana's Menard be started in 2007-8??. Here is one opportunity for the mayor to have positively influenced economic development in Urbana and it did not happen. The mayor and city staff have been evasive in providing an explanation, just like they have been in providing information about the city budget. You can read about my correspondence with city staff here.
Also, Menards officials have met recently with city officials about an Urbana store. They are planning to start building new stores again and are very pleased that Urbana officials were able to secure $2.5 million in state capital funds to improve Illinois 130 near where their store would go.
Meanrds bought the land, so one expects that they would/will eventually build here. The questions Council Member Smyth asked me about my remarks indicates Council members' ignorance about this good, if true, news. That council members did not know and that it is announced anonymously (assuming it true) on a political online chat group, indicates city staff's and the mayor's indisposition to be open with both the Council and the public. The mayor was similarly secretive for most of this year about the city's spending deficit and coming budget shortfall.
Getting a Menards so many years after Champaign confirms how Bozo Urbana has lagged and continues to lag behind Champaign.
Michael Fuerst
Go here for Urbana postage stamps, T-shirts and bumper stickers:
http://bozourbana.org/wordpress/?page_id=3
The ordinance denies landlords the use of criminal background as a grounds for not renting property.
The ordinance denies landlords the use of criminal background as a grounds for not renting property.
Such a provision is totally irrelevant, as noted in my 01:07 AM remarks
Michael Fuerst
Go here for Urbana postage stamps, T-shirts and bumper stickers:
http://bozourbana.org/wordpress/?page_id=3
I remember an election campaign ...
There were a couple of candidates talking about these issues ... budget shortfalls, the litigious implications of screening tenants compounded by the wacky proposal to punish landlords for tenant behavior ...
The Mayor ignored, dismissed, or stymied all discussion of these issues.
"Such a provision is totally irrelevant, as noted in my 01:07 AM remarks"
I believe we can rely on this comment as evidence that MJerry has not been a defendant in such a case. Good for him.
The provisions don't explicitly stop landlords from performing background checks. They merely make one liable for damages. A felon (or felon's eager young attorney) finds some paper trail (memo, receipt) showing that a landlord hired a company to perform a background check. The felon shows his application for housing, and maybe even some communication from a particularly silly landlord, denying the application.
Preponderance of evidence doesn't help MJerry, because Urbana also disallows discrimination based on a tenant's ability to pay.
It's the old Chilling effect, see. It's not just landlords. Small businesses better hire that convicted thief to man the cash register. Or else!
Sec. 12-37. Intent and purpose.
It is the intent of the City of Urbana in adopting this article, to secure an end, in the city, to discrimination, including, but not limited to, discrimination by reason of race, color, creed, class, national origin, religion, sex, age, marital status, physical and mental disability, personal appearance, sexual preference, family responsibilities, matriculation, political affiliation, prior arrest or conviction record or source of income, or any other discrimination based upon categorizing or classifying a person rather than evaluating a person's unique qualifications relevant to an opportunity in housing, employment, credit or access to public accommodations.
http://www.city.urbana.il.us/urbana/city_code/11603001.HTM
Sec. 12-39. Definitions.
Discrimination. Any practice or act which is unlawfully based wholly or partially on the race, color, creed, class, national origin, religion, sex, age, marital status, physical or mental disability, personal appearance, sexual preference, family responsibilities, matriculation, political affiliation, prior arrest or conviction record or source of income of any individual, or any subclass of the above groups.
http://www.city.urbana.il.us/urbana/city_code/11603004.HTM
Sec. 12-81. Filing of complaints.
(a) Any individual who believes that he or she has been aggrieved by a violation of the provisions of this article may file a complaint with the commission or officer. An individual seeking compensatory damages must file a complaint with the human relations officer. The officer shall keep records of all complaints made to the human relations office, whether or not a formal complaint has been filed.
http://www.city.urbana.il.us/urbana/city_code/11603008.HTM
Sec. 12-103. Enforcement powers of commission; institution of civil proceedings.
(a) The chair of the commission, or the acting chair in the absence of the chair, shall issue subpoenas at the instance of the commission or the investigator, or at the instance of a respondent or complainant to the proceedings, whenever necessary to compel the attendance of a witness or to require the production for examination of any books, payrolls, records, correspondence, documents, papers or other evidence in any investigation or hearing of a discrimination complaint.
(b) If the commission determines that the respondent(s) have not, after thirty (30) calendar days following service of its order, corrected the unlawful practice and complied with this article, the commission shall certify the matter to the city attorney for enforcement proceedings.
(c) The city attorney shall institute, in the name of the City of Urbana, civil proceedings, including the seeking of such restraining orders and temporary or permanent injunctions, as are necessary to obtain complete compliance with the commission's orders.
http://www.city.urbana.il.us/urbana/city_code/11603014.HTM
Moëtry in the Potion
Urbana also disallows discrimination based on a tenant's ability to pay.
Try again. Source of income ≠ solvency.
Did I say solvency?
If I were prosecuting MJerry I would submit this thread as evidence. I'd submit that denial based on "inadequate income" violates the "source of income" clause.
How much would you be willing to bet that I'd lose that argument in front of a hearing officer who is not you?
Moëtry in the Potion
Did I say solvency?
You said "ability to pay" - which is solvency.
If I were prosecuting MJerry I would submit this thread as evidence. I'd submit that denial based on "inadequate income" violates the "source of income" clause.
Urbana's saying you can't discriminate based on WHERE the money comes from - it does not matter if you have an hourly job, under-the-table cash wages, a salary, welfare, Social Security, alimony, child support, student stipend, pension, etc.
This is pretty standard stuff.
I believe we can rely on this comment as evidence that MJerry has not been a defendant in such a case.
There has never been a defendant in such a case in Urbana.
Michael Fuerst
Go here for Urbana postage stamps, T-shirts and bumper stickers:
http://bozourbana.org/wordpress/?page_id=3
My question -> whose interpretation of the phrase matters?
Is it "where you get your money" or is it to do with a landlord's expectation of payment? i.e. it doesn't matter whether a landlord thinks you can pay, it just matters that you DO pay. (But first, the landlord MUST rent to you.)
Maybe the hearing officer is the same Mayor who wants to expand the definition to cover the undocumented poor as well as the discredited poor.
If you submit to the hearing officer "this is pretty standard stuff" you will not find the response to be "Oh it is? Oh, then never mind."
You'd cite cases in which the language has been parsed to the same conclusion you seek. That would probably carry some weight in showing that Urbana intended the same interpretation. To buttress that argument, you'd need to dig up the legislative history, council minutes etc.
You might win. How much would that cost you in attorney's fees?
Moëtry in the Potion
If you submit to the hearing officer "this is pretty standard stuff" you will not find the response to be "Oh it is? Oh, then never mind."
You'd cite cases in which the language has been parsed to the same conclusion you seek. That would probably carry some weight in showing that Urbana intended the same interpretation. To buttress that argument, you'd need to dig up the legislative history, council minutes etc.
You might win. How much would that cost you in attorney's fees?
Google is your friend. It's pretty clear in ALL of the literature and other legislation that "source of income discrimination" refers exclusively to the source of your income - that is, who's paying you each month (employer, ex-spouse, Social Security, etc.) Urbana is not unique in this discrimination ordinance - countless other states and municipalities have identically worded clauses that are, across the board, interpreted exactly as I have indicated.
That is why I'm comfortable asserting that "this is fairly standard stuff."
Scrolling up is your friend.
You're still not saying how much you'd be willing to pay to prove your assertions are correct . The soundness of your argument is not an issue when you're dealing with people who don't understand logic. Nor does it help against people who get paid by the hour to make an argument, regardless of its salience.
The more you make yourself susceptible to litigation ≠ more litigation. But the converse is true, too. That "there has never been a defendant in such a case in Urbana" ≠ "there will never be such a prosecution in Urbana."
So you have your hearing. It turns out you're right. That'll be $430. Do you feel well served by your city code?
But that's just a tangent.
It's when you get sued, have your hearing, and are found liable because you did a background check. Then you pay $4,300. Or whatever the judgment.
You don't even remember the application, much less the felon who claims to have submitted it to your office. But there's the paper trail, and the hearing officer finds against you on the preponderance of the evidence.
Now do you feel well served by your city code?
Why not just do away with it? Discriminating against people can be a great thing. The trick is to not discriminate based on inescapable traits, like skin-color, inability to use various limbs, hankerings for the similarly sexed, etc.
Discriminating against people based on their tendency to jimmy the screens off neighboring windows and sexualize the people sleeping within -- that's a good thing.
Moëtry in the Potion
Well, it looks like you've completely abandoned the "ability to pay" argument in favor of the criminal background check argument - which I never disagreed with.
I actually entirely agree with you about the background check issue - it's going to be tough for a landlord to prove that the results of the background check he ran did not factor into his decision to not lease to a criminal. I also think it's a ridiculous clause, considering the anti-discrimination ordinance asks citizens to "evaluat[e] a person's unique qualifications relevant to an opportunity in housing, employment, credit or access to public accommodations." Felonious convictions definitely factor into someone's "unique qualifications."
At the City Council meeting, more than one person pointed out that there were usually lawful ways to keep felons and other undesirable people out - the landlord could require credit reports, rental histories, references, etc. True enough, but I was a little confused about the point of the ordinance prohibiting discrimination based on criminal record. I mean, if it's not a problem because it's easy to circumvent, why have it on the books at all?
I have to agree with Thought Police. If a hitman generates his income by killing people, we cannot discriminate on his source of income. But since he has the ability to pay, we'd probably have to rent to him, unless there is some other lawful way to reject him. I'd like to understand the legal ways to reject a felon while pretending we don't know the applicant is a felon and pretending we never conducted any such background check.
"I mean, if it's not a problem because it's easy to circumvent, why have it on the books at all?"
I like this comment. I don't like the sentiment from Michael that since there hasn't been a prosecution, then we don't need to be too concerned about a bad law. He did not say that exactly, but that's what I get from it. I follow all the laws as they are written (keeping a straight face while exercising selective memory) and don't look at whether or not a law has resulted in police action or convictions in determining whether or not I follow it.
I don't understand the point of this ordinance at all. If criminals are committing crimes at various locations, why aren't they being prosecuted for those crimes? If the police aren't investigating and charging, say, drug dealers who are dealing at various locations, are we really asking the landlords or property managers to address the problem? If there are three police reports in one year, do they have to be for the same offense? And if the landlord gets three police reports for a tenant causing problems, can they use that to evict someone, or does that run afoul of the City's ordinance prohibiting discrimination? What happens if there are arrests, but the charges are dismissed, or there is no conviction? This appears to be an attempt by the City to impose responsibility for individual behavior on the property owners. What happens if all of the alleged offenders are minorities? Will the property owners be hauled in front of the Human Rights commmission? Just because it hasn't happened so far doesn't mean it can't happen in the future.
"If criminals are committing crimes at various locations, why aren't they being prosecuted for those crimes?"
There are only so many cops and lawyers. Still, I don't see that as justification for landlords to be responsible for crimes committed on their property.
"are we really asking the landlords or property managers to address the problem?"
Nobody knows what they will be asking, that is a major problem with type of proposal. There are no guidelines or expectations on how to prevent crime on your property. This is silly considering you can be charged $750/day for someone else committing crime on your property.
"And if the landlord gets three police reports for a tenant causing problems, can they use that to evict someone, or does that run afoul of the City's ordinance prohibiting discrimination?"
It doesn't mean you can’t be fighting such claims. You are essentially guilty until proven innocent in these types of deals. More likely is the scenario where the tenant union is going to be barking at your for kicking out someone without reasonable justification.
"What happens if there are arrests, but the charges are dismissed, or there is no conviction?"
Convictions have nothing to do with this. The property can be designed a nuisance property with three police complaints period.
"What happens if all of the alleged offenders are minorities?"
Minorities don't commit crimes or engage in nuisance behavior disproportionately. If you are taking action against minorities disproportionately, you deserve to be hauled in front of the human rights commission.
(A little sarcasm on that last one, but only mentioned to remind you that professional politicians and government workers will be ones determining what is reasonable.)
I think this is a way for the city to shift law enforcement to private property owners. I can't figure out what they are trying to achieve, and with all of the prohibitions in URbana, the owners' hands are already tied behind their backs.
I certainly didn't mean to suggest that minorities commit crimes in disproportionate numbers, but what if you're the unlucky property owner who is faced with trying to address a problem involving multiple complaints against minorities--what will the City of Urbana do then?
This just seems like a bad idea all the way around. More ordinances on the books don't reduce crime. Try enforcing the laws that are already on the books first.
Thanks ROB, you've illustrated the point I was walking toward. If I cannot conduct a criminal background check on a tenant, then I will be sued.
I have an idea for a new criminal nuisance property ordinance...try this one out: Get rid of the ordinance that prohibits landlords from excluding convicted felons from their properties as tenants. Maybe they should try that out as a first step...
This appears to be an example of policing through ordinance.
If I cannot conduct a criminal background check on a tenant, then I will be sued.
This sentence does not make sense. Please explain
Michael Fuerst
Go here for Urbana postage stamps, T-shirts and bumper stickers:
http://bozourbana.org/wordpress/?page_id=3
I'm evolving a new theory.
I'm starting to recognize that some landlords might really, really like the "prior conviction" clause. It would seem to mitigate their responsibility for inadequate tenant screening.
When sued for housing a serial rapist/home invader among his next three victims, a landlord could point to the city code and say "hey, it's not MY fault. I had to do it."
But there's no way it helps the small business.
Moëtry in the Potion
If I cannot conduct a criminal background check on a tenant, then I will be sued.
Meaning that I cannot do a criminal background check before I rent to a tenant , since this would be a violation of the conditions. I suppose the turned down tenant would then discover I had indeed checked on the background of the tenant and then pursue legal actions for refusal to rent.,etc.
It's the same reason you won't find a DOB blank on the modern employment application form. Who wants to get sued for age discrimination?
And SS# is gone, too. But that's just general liability.
Moëtry in the Potion
I suppose the turned down tenant would then discover I had indeed checked on the background of the tenant and then pursue legal actions for refusal to rent.,etc.
How would the turned down tenant discover this? Would you tell the tenant that you did such a check? You will always have a valid reason not to such a person: insufficent rental history, insufficient income. No such case has ever been brought concerning an Urbana rental unit .
Michael Fuerst
Go here for Urbana postage stamps, T-shirts and bumper stickers:
http://bozourbana.org/wordpress/?page_id=3
If it's not a problem, then allow a criminal background check.