Friday's Northwest Herald carried a front-page article about a proposal of the police chief of Crystal Lake that owners of property could ultimately lose their property if they were not able to control their tenants enough to reduce police calls to the property.
And today's Northwest Herald editorial, Our View, supports consideration of the proposed ordinance.
Both are dead-wrong!
I'm reminded yet once again that "The price of freedom is eternal vigilance."
If police were called to a property three times within 120 days, that property (businesses, apartment complexes, private homes, etc.) could be deemed a chronic nuisance. Chief David Linder's ordinance would, according to the newspaper article, "allow police to impose penalties on property owners ranging from fines to closure of properties."
Aside from the fact that the reporter and the editor who approved the article don't understand how laws and punishments work (police don't "impose penalties"), should the police even be proposing ordinances?
Making laws in a community is the work of the City Council. If the police feel a need for a new law, then they go to the City administrator, who goes to the Council.
There are plenty of existing laws for police to enforce without the need to threaten a property owner for the illegal activities of his tenants. Getting cases promptly into court for trial will go a long way. Cutting through the delaying tactics of defense lawyers will help. Judges should refuse repeated requests for continuances and direct both sides to be ready promptly for trial.
Landlords' hands are often tied by State and Federal laws regarding actions they can take against tenants, and all actions are subject to due process. Evictions can take months. Even processing of court cases after police issue tickets for disorderly conduct can drag for months, sometimes for years. As proposed, this ordinane would kick in after three police calls within 120 days.
These types of ordinances have a tendency to spread from one community to the next. Crystal Lake will be right to stop it in its tracks. We in Woodstock must be vigilant to prevent its spread in this direction.
© 2008 GUS PHILPOTT
You never know who is interested…
3 months ago
1 comment:
One of the pilars that the US Constitution is based on is the right of an individual to own and hold private property. I think that depriving an individual of property would take a lot more than a three strikes and you loose your property philosophy, expecially if the three strike were committed by someone else.
Post a Comment