Working through a proposed “chronic nuisance property” ordinance, members of the city’s Public Safety Committee want to ensure that landlords are given a fair shake when it comes to problem tenants while making sure the ordinance can be used to effectively deal with crime-ridden properties.
The Public Safety Committee looked at a draft ordinance following the regular City Council meeting on Nov. 12.
Under the proposed ordinance, properties associated with criminal behaviors may ultimately be closed for use from 30 to 180 days by the city.
The initial proposal, similar to a Springfield ordinance, defines chronic nuisance properties as those where patrons, employees, residents, owners or occupants engage in three or more prohibited acts on or within 400 feet of the subject property during a 90-day period.
Prohibited acts include criminal homicide, attempted criminal homicide, first-degree rape, menacing, intimidation, harassment, disorderly conduct, discharge of weapons, unnecessary noise, drinking in public places where prohibited, minor in possession of alcohol, assault, sexual abuse, public indecency, criminal mischief, criminal mistreatment and unlawful use of a weapon.
After two offenses, the police chief is supposed to notify responsible parties associated with the property and then enter into a “compliance agreement.” After a third incident, the City Council shall be advised and, upon deliberation, may direct city staff to take additional action.
In court, the responsible party may be fined up to $500 per offense and the property closed for 30 to 180 days. Afterward, a fine of up to $1,000 may be imposed for additional incidents.
In lieu of closing the property, the responsible party may be permitted to file a bond with the city of at least $500 conditioned upon non-recurrence of incidents for one year after a judgment.
In defense, a property owner may claim he or she could not determine the property had become a chronic nuisance or control the conduct leading to the determination the property is a chronic nuisance.
The assertion that the party was not present at the property at the time of the alleged behavior cannot, alone, be a defense.
Councilor Bruce Hobbs said notification after three events and action after four events seem to be more reasonable limits.
Police Chief Jeff Lynn agreed.
“I think two is a little too restrictive,” Lynn said. “I’d like to see three and four before I get involved.”
Hobbs also wanted to see a defense permitted for landlords who are out of the country, for example, and unable to get involved when tenants are triggering the ordinance.
But he does not want to see an “I-live-in-California” defense for perpetually absentee property owners.
Some businesses in the past could have potentially qualified as chronic nuisances, Hobbs said, and he would like to see them addressed in the ordinance as well as residential properties, while he and others noted that it could potentially impact properties such as Sweet Home High School and local bars.
The Oregon Liquor Control Commission already holds a hammer over bars where there are chronic problems, Lynn said, and typically, businesses don’t have many issues except where they are the victims.
Lynn told the Public Safety Committee that he had talked with Silverton and Stayton officials, who have the ordinance available as a tool but rarely use it.
Lynn also said he would like to decrease the effective area around a property from 400 feet. At that distance, activity a block away could impact a property’s status.
Councilor Greg Mahler and Hobbs both thought unnecessary noise needed to be defined better.
Noise can be a big problem for neighborhoods, though.
It’s the fighting and cussing on Sunday afternoons that can be heard inside neighboring homes, said Gay Byers, who lives in the downtown Nandina Street neighborhood.
At the same time, the Sweet Home Police Department rarely issues noise ordinance citations, Lynn said. Usually, an officer gives a warning and the violation stops.
Under the proposed ordinance, multiple charges on a single incident will not count as more than one incident, but Lynn said he would count multiple police responses to the same address a few hours apart as multiple incidents.
Following the discussion, Snyder said he would adjust the language of the ordinance and return to the Public Safety Committee in January with a new draft.
The Public Safety Committee may then send a recommendation about the ordinance to the City Council.