Welcome to the APBWeb.
Results 1 to 5 of 5
  1. #1
    Terminator's Avatar
    Terminator is offline BANNED
    Join Date
    12-03-05
    Location
    None of your business
    Posts
    16,064
    Rep Power
    0

    In Pittsburgh if you're a landlord who rents to drug dealers and drunks, and bad neighbors, the city will bill you for public safety calls

    City property owners who house drug dealers and users, public drunks, bad neighbors or runaway dogs should watch their mailboxes. Mayor Luke Ravenstahl may have just fired a warning shot across your bow.
    Late last week, the city sent 39 letters to owners of properties at which "disruptive activities" have been cited since October. The letters announce first -- or in one case, second -- strikes against the owners. A third strike could get the property listed as disruptive, and subject the owner to invoices for future public safety calls.
    "I think it represents a good start and something that clearly shows that we're serious about taking back our neighborhoods," Mayor Luke Ravenstahl said yesterday. "Forceful action was necessary, and I think that's what we're trying to implement."
    Some of the subject property owners weren't happy.
    "Are we big brother now?" asked Charles Yanders, a landlord who was sent a letter about a liquor violation at his building at 714 Cedar Ave., in East Allegheny. "With that particular building, we've had problems with people who don't even live there damaging the locks, being in the building, being in the hallways. ... You can have people actually vandalizing your property, and if you call the police about people who don't even live there, they're going to log that against you?"
    Each letter included an appeal form, and Mr. Yanders said he would be filling one out. Appeals go to a new five-member panel.
    The letters mark the city's first use of an ordinance passed in late 2007 that, along with ongoing registration of rental housing, is meant to give public safety officials a better handle on neighborhood quality of life. The city now tracks the locations of a slew of summonses, citations and arrests, and aide Maria Bethel screens them and begins the enforcement process. If the city sees three disruptive incidents in 60 days, the property owner can be told to submit an abatement plan, or get a bill the next time police, firefighters, building inspectors or animal control officers have to come around.
    The first round of letters will be followed by weekly batches, said Public Safety Director Michael Huss.
    By ZIP code, the largest number of letters -- seven -- are related to disruptions in 15204, which includes Sheraden, Esplen, Chartiers City and Windgap. The runner-up ZIP code is 15210, which includes Carrick and the Hilltop neighborhoods above South Side, with five disruptive acts.
    Fourteen of the 39 letters cited drug, alcohol or paraphernalia-related violations, and three listed gun crimes.
    Surprises in the first salvo include the prevalence of loose dog complaints -- they make up 18 of the 39 disruptive acts -- and the number of apparently owner-occupied properties getting the warning.
    Dog violations are prevalent because they're easy to prove, said Public Safety Director Michael Huss. "Once we get that dog and someone shows up to get that dog, then of course it's very clear, we know who it belongs to, and a citation is issued," he said.
    Drug cases, by contrast, involve a lengthier process that would delay the sending of a disruptive property action.
    Kathleen Wrigley, the subject of a city letter for the Nov. 14 escape of her dog from her Greenfield Avenue home, called the city's warning to her "ridiculous" and said the city should be focusing its efforts elsewhere.
    "We do have a contained yard for her. She just likes to run around the block," she said. "There's enough disruption that goes on in our neighborhood, such as drugs, and people not paying attention to the traffic signs."
    Ben Ferris, though, had no problem with getting a letter triggered by the December escape of his St. Bernard, Bernie, from his Brookline yard.
    "I put a lock on my gate now," he said. "Three times and you're out? That seems fair to me."
    The only person to get a second strike was Susanna Liberty, a South Side Slopes resident, whose dogs got loose twice, according to the city letters.
    Though the disruptive properties ordinance has been viewed in large measure as a way of getting at absentee landlords, more than half of the properties involved in the initial letters are apparently owner-occupied.
    "At first glance, I was surprised by it as well," said Mr. Ravenstahl. "Why that is, I'm not necessarily sure, but if you're in violation, you're in violation, if you're not, you're not."
    Landlord groups have criticized city government for measures including the disruptive properties ordinance and a new $12-per-unit fee. Some are considering lawsuits to stop the measures.
    "Those numbers dispel that feeling of landlords being targeted," the mayor said. "Our goal is to clean up the city. Our goal is to have good quality neighborhoods."

  2. #2
    Five-0's Avatar
    Five-0 is offline Super Moderator
    Premium Lifetime Member
    Verified LEO
    Super Moderator
    Join Date
    05-15-06
    Posts
    10,982
    Rep Power
    8357019
    BS. If you toss them out after a year long eviction process you will get sued for housing discrimination. Grandstanding politician.....AGAIN.

    Meanwhile, fishing in Russia:

    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SkzV5AIK8iM
    "When plunder becomes a way of life for a group of men living together in society, they create for themselves in the course of time a legal system that authorizes it and a moral code that justifies it." -- Frederic Bastiat

    "Certainly there is no hunting like the hunting of man and those who have hunted armed men long enough and liked it, never really care for anything else thereafter." Ernest Hemingway

    The opinions given in my signatures & threads DO NOT reflect the opinions, views, policies, and/or procedures of my employing agency. They are my personal opinions only, thereby releasing my agency of any liability, or involvement in anything posted under the username "Five-0" on Officerresource.com

  3. #3
    Retdetsgt's Avatar
    Retdetsgt is offline How did I get here!
    Verified LEO
    Join Date
    12-07-05
    Location
    Oregon
    Posts
    1,944
    Rep Power
    7757748
    We did it with owners of properties who had drug dealers for tenants. It worked well. Made landlords a little more careful about who that rented to in the the first place. Judges weren't the least bit sympathetic to the tenants if they tried to fight the eviction after a drug warrant was served.

    Trying it with any police calls for service is over the top though.
    When I used to be somebody (I'm center top)

    "A burning desire for social justice is never a substitute for knowing what you're talking about". -Thomas Sowell-

  4. #4
    IndianaFuzz's Avatar
    IndianaFuzz is offline Policeman Perry fan club
    Verified LEO
    Join Date
    11-09-08
    Location
    Muncie, IN
    Posts
    1,616
    Rep Power
    1596351
    I understand the desire of such an effort, but to work right, it would have to be done right. Blindly enforcing won't get them far. This is something that I think would need state law to back it up to work right. Like 5-0 said, you evict a guy and he will sue, either for discrimination, or simple breach of contract. If state law is re-written to allow evictions of drug and/or violent criminals, then local laws could actually have bite. "Disruptive activities" is a nice vague term, huh? At most, any such local/state law should limit action to deal with criminal acts. If a tenant is arrested for multiple criminal offenses, then notify the landlord and give him adequate chance to remedy the situation. Then after that doesn't work, write the landlord a ticket. But make sure to give the landlord the proper legal means to take care of it, means that will hold up in state or federal court down the road. Also something should be written into the law to compensate the landlord for getting rid of the scum. Losing a tenant can mean lost income (if its not a subsidized property), so the landlord gets penalized for obeying the new law. If they can figure out ways to tweek this idea so that it doesn't leave so much chance for people to get screwed unjustly. Until a good enough version could be drafted, I wouldn't support it.
    CHIRP! CHIRP!

  5. #5
    Retdetsgt's Avatar
    Retdetsgt is offline How did I get here!
    Verified LEO
    Join Date
    12-07-05
    Location
    Oregon
    Posts
    1,944
    Rep Power
    7757748
    It'll be found unconstitutional, no doubt. It's too vague. But as I said, it worked when we used a similar ordinance just to target drug dealers. Even then, it wasn't enforced unless we have served a search warrant and found drugs. In Oregon, the chance of anyone going to prison for violation of state drug laws was pretty slim unless it was the 16th convicition or something like that. So it came in handy to disrupt them and keep them from finding another landlord to rent to them.

    But again, it was quite specific and there was no aura of "contempt of cop" anywhere in it.
    When I used to be somebody (I'm center top)

    "A burning desire for social justice is never a substitute for knowing what you're talking about". -Thomas Sowell-

 

 

Thread Information

Users Browsing this Thread

There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)

Tags for this Thread

Bookmarks

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •