Latest Post | Last 10 Posts | Archives
Previous Post: Arduin continues winning streak
Next Post: Looking on the bright side
Posted in:
* My old buddy Scott Reeder’s recent column was too good to just post an excerpt, so I asked him to send me the whole thing. Read it all…
No good deed goes unpunished.
As least that’s how Jessica Barron feels these days.
She lives with her partner of 18 years, Kenny Wylie, and their three children on a quiet residential street in Granite City, a blue-collar Illinois community not far from St. Louis.
In July, they heard a pounding on the door and someone shouting, “Police. Open up.”
When Jessica answered her door, she found a group of police officers on her porch with an eviction notice.
But here’s the rub: neither Jessica nor her family have broken any laws and their landlord wants them to remain tenants. But the city says they must go.
Why? Because of a friend of her son’s, who had been their houseguest for a few nights the previous winter.
“He told me his mother was dead and his father was in prison,” Jessica Barron said. “He was 19 years old and it was below zero outside. I told him he could sleep on our sofa that night. I also told him our door was always open to him.”
Jessica said she was raised to help others.
“I may only have three biological children. But lots of kids call me, ‘Mom.’ “
The friend of their son stayed in their home occasionally until Jessica learned that his mother was very much alive and then her family experienced a theft. She told him he was no longer welcome.
The erstwhile houseguest was later convicted of burglarizing a neighborhood tavern.
Like about 50 other Illinois communities, Granite City has a compulsory-eviction ordinance, which allows police to force landlords to evict an entire household after anyone who has stayed in the house—even a house guest—commits a crime.
It’s the sort of “mother knows best” mindset that’s all too common in government.
“No one should be punished for a crime someone else committed,” said Robert McNamara, a senior attorney at the Institute for Justice, which is representing Jessica’s family. “That simple notion is at the heart of our criminal justice system—that we are all innocent until proven guilty. And yet Granite City is punishing an innocent family for a crime committed by someone they barely knew.”
Under Granite City’s “crime-free housing” ordinance, private landlords are required (on pain of fines or revocation of their rental license) to evict an entire household of tenants if police believe any member—even a house guest—committed a crime. There is no requirement that the tenants participated in or even knew about the crime. If one member of the household is a criminal, the whole household can automatically be punished for their crime.
“We want to stay in this house,” Jessica said. “Buying a home isn’t an option for us, and with an eviction on our record, it’ll be nearly impossible to find another place to rent. I cannot believe we could end up homeless because we choose to open our home to someone in need—someone we trusted, but who was not the person he claimed to be.”
At the end of the day, ordinances like the one in Granite City have little to do with punishing criminals and everything to do with punishing renters who happen to be friends, family or just roommates with a person who commits a crime.
Institute for Justice attorney Sam Gedge said he is seeking a federal court order to block the city from evicting the family.
“What Granite City is doing is not just wrong, it is plainly unconstitutional. The Constitution does not allow the government to punish people for who their roommates are or for crimes other people have committed. The government cannot take away your home—whether you own it or rent it—because of something someone else did somewhere else,” he said.
* Some background…
* Federal Lawsuit Claims Granite City’s Crime-Free Housing Rules Are Unconstitutional
* Granite City facing federal lawsuit over controversial crime-free housing ordinance
* A Granite City family took in a teen. Now they face eviction
* Landlord criticizes Granite City’s crime-free ordinance
* Granite City threatens family with eviction after house guest burglarizes tavern
posted by Rich Miller
Wednesday, Sep 18, 19 @ 12:08 pm
Sorry, comments are closed at this time.
Previous Post: Arduin continues winning streak
Next Post: Looking on the bright side
WordPress Mobile Edition available at alexking.org.
powered by WordPress.
The government interferes in the business relationship between a landlord and tenant - telling the landlord who can purchase the product? Why not tell the grocery store they can’t sell groceries to someone convicted of a crime? Or the family of the person convicted of a crime. That’s shocking.
Comment by NoGifts Wednesday, Sep 18, 19 @ 12:17 pm
A growing number of Illinois communities have adopted these completely ineffective, thoughtless, discriminatory “crime free” housing policies that treat renters very differently than homeowners. In “crime free” communities two teens can be arrested for the exact same crime — if one teen’s family rents their housing they face loss of housing, and if the other teen’s family owns their housing they face no loss of housing.
The City of Zion was going after domestic violence victims with their “crime free” policies:
https://www.chicagotribune.com/suburbs/lake-county-news-sun/ct-lns-zion-nuisance-property-ordinance-st-0215-20170217-story.html
https://www.chicagotribune.com/suburbs/lake-county-news-sun/opinion/ct-lns-editorial-zion-ordinance-st-0225-20170224-story.html
Comment by Just Observing Wednesday, Sep 18, 19 @ 12:18 pm
This seems truly bonkers. I hope they get this resolved.
Comment by Chicago Cynic Wednesday, Sep 18, 19 @ 12:18 pm
Good point -Just observing- Can municipalities tell banks they have to call the mortgage loans of homeowners where a family member was convicted of a crime?
Comment by NoGifts Wednesday, Sep 18, 19 @ 12:20 pm
In Skokie, if one is arrested anywhere in the world for a felony the landlord must begin eviction proceedings against the tenant based on the preponderance of the evidence (even if they were found not guilty). So, if a Skokie tenant is arrested for gay relations in a country where it is a felony, unbelievably, the landlord must begin to evict the tenant.
Comment by Just Observing Wednesday, Sep 18, 19 @ 12:24 pm
And so the family can’t rent in the town at all, because presumably the next landlord can get the same directive. The family is effectively evicted from town unless they can buy a home.
Comment by NoGifts Wednesday, Sep 18, 19 @ 12:24 pm
The Fair Housing and anti discrimination laws are starting to look into these rules. I do believe it is now illegal to have a blanket prohibition. Have to look at offense and when it was
I have certainly heard of tossing out tenants who are actively breaking law but this is way different and probably illegal
Comment by DuPage Saint Wednesday, Sep 18, 19 @ 12:30 pm
I used to rent out a house, but haven’t got years. As a landlord, you have to try to protect yourself from both bad tenants and government overreach. I did have a clause forbidding criminal activity on the property and another one stating that 3 police calls to the property in a year was grounds for eviction and nullified the lease.
Three strikes is reasonable; one is unreasonable … and in this case where the criminal wasn’t even on the lease or a family member, it is way, way out of line.
Glad to see IJ is supporting their suit. The ACLU should also join it. I suspect, if they have the money or support to pursue this case through appeals, the city will lose.
The only question in my mind is how many people might subsequently be able to sue the city for damages. If the IJ lawyers can get it certified as a Class Action, the city could be looking at some serious penalities.
Comment by RNUG Wednesday, Sep 18, 19 @ 12:42 pm
Police Commander: “Ok boys, here’s the address now go throw mom, dad and all the kids out of the house”.
Assigned officers: “What did they do?”
Police Commander: “Nothing. Now go evict them.”
Comment by don the legend Wednesday, Sep 18, 19 @ 12:45 pm
Some municipalities think they’re God the way they write ordinances. Hopefully a judge will put brakes on this process, since this is vastly different from people running criminal enterprises from their housing.
Comment by revvedup Wednesday, Sep 18, 19 @ 12:45 pm
The Koch brothers funded Institute For Justice gets involved in Illinois. Whoa…
Comment by Steve Wednesday, Sep 18, 19 @ 12:53 pm
== The Koch brothers funded Institute For Justice gets involved in Illinois. ==
If you follow and read the various linked stories, the left leaning ACLU intervened in a similar case. Just because the IJ leans right doesn’t mean they can’t oppose bad laws.
I was dead serious about my suggestion the ACLU and IJ joins forces on this common issue.
Comment by RNUG Wednesday, Sep 18, 19 @ 12:58 pm
Just Observing - that Skokie ordinance is bananas.
https://www.egovlink.com/public_documents300/skokie/published_documents/Manager%20Department/Multi-Family%20Licensing%20Program/CRIME%20FREE%20LEASE%20ADDENDUM%20Final.pdf
I genuinely did not know this was a thing. Holy heck.
Comment by lakeside Wednesday, Sep 18, 19 @ 12:59 pm
This is a great example of why most ‘zero tolerance’ directives are ludicrous. There will always be situations in which enforcing the policy does more harm than good.
Comment by Cubs in '16 Wednesday, Sep 18, 19 @ 1:00 pm
=== I did have a clause forbidding criminal activity on the property and another one stating that 3 police calls to the property in a year was grounds for eviction and nullified the lease. Three strikes is reasonable; one is unreasonable. ===
These three strikes clauses, common in municipal ordinances and leases, are problematic. It deters renters from calling the police to report crimes and when they need assistance. A woman with an ex-boyfriend vigilantly stalking her may be forced to choose between calling the police when he’s outside her door or risk losing her housing.
Comment by Just Observing Wednesday, Sep 18, 19 @ 1:03 pm
This law meant well but has unintended consequences. Sorry to see this happen to this family who were duped and had the best intentions.
Comment by Levois J Wednesday, Sep 18, 19 @ 1:06 pm
== These three strikes clauses, common in municipal ordinances and leases, are problematic. ==
In 20+ years, there was only one instance where I could have invoked it. Typical domestic and the woman never hesitated to call the police even though she was just as abusive (,if not more so) than he was. Ended up evicting them for non-payment.
I remember during the eviction; I apologized to the officers but I never forgot the one’s comment … that they would just be going to a different address on the same calls.
Comment by RNUG Wednesday, Sep 18, 19 @ 1:09 pm
“…who had been their houseguest for a few nights the previous winter…” and they get the knock in July? that is the part that is extreme. if it had been immediate, still would have been problematic, but less so because it was right near the time of the crime.
Comment by Anonymous Wednesday, Sep 18, 19 @ 1:17 pm
===This law meant well but has unintended consequences.===
I wouldn’t even give these types of laws that much credit. Evicting anyone, even the alleged criminal, for a crime that has no nexus to the housing is vindictive and bad for public safety. Evicting based on call-volume to police alone is equally unwise and potentially dangerous. When used for nuisance abatement (the tenant is running a brothel or illegal drug ring etc. out of the property itself), evictions can be reasonable. But a lot of these towns are out of control.
Comment by Leslie K Wednesday, Sep 18, 19 @ 1:18 pm
Public housing has evection if you are convicted of a drug offense. Wonder how well that gets enforced in Chicago?
Comment by Nieva Wednesday, Sep 18, 19 @ 1:24 pm
- RNUG -
I’m not criticizing IJ: they do truly great work. This case is an outrage. Whatever happened to the contracts clause of the U.S. Constitution?
Comment by Steve Wednesday, Sep 18, 19 @ 1:26 pm
Are we going to pretend these laws were not written with the express reasoning of ‘getting rid of the minorities’ in a community.
It looks bad if you burn a cross in front of someones house. It looks less bad, and has the force of law, to throw out the residents(who are likely all related and share the same skin color) if just a single person residing at that home commits a crime. A crime that can easily be fabricated by the same authorities that will be the ones throwing them out of their house.
I can’t see any reason for these laws to exist, other than their… ‘unintended’ consequences of getting rid of entire families from a community.
These laws need to be voided everywhere.
But then again, IL still has a law that defines the burning of the US flag as a crime, even though it has been ruled unconstitutional by the Supreme Court for almost all of my adult life. With an authority having a certain mindset, even unconstitutional laws can still be used to harass people(like the kid in Urbana arrested for posting a pic of a burning flag on facebook 2 years ago).
Comment by TheInvisibleMan Wednesday, Sep 18, 19 @ 1:29 pm
This law is in need of review and perhaps a tweak.
Comment by A guy Wednesday, Sep 18, 19 @ 1:32 pm
I thought this was just a Section 8 housing thing, which on its own is pretty bad, but looks like this applies to any rental housing in Granite City, and I guess the other municipalities with similar ordinances.
Further, it looks like the tenant has no opportunity to appeal, but there is due process rights for the landlord since Granite City requires a license for rental properties, however, why would a landlord risk losing their license to try to protect a tenant?
Comment by JSS Wednesday, Sep 18, 19 @ 1:37 pm
Weren’t those laws allowing municipalities to seize assets (cars, houses, etc) that were suspected of being involved in a drug crime ruled unconstitutional? Seems like this would be the same sort of thing.
Comment by Skeptic Wednesday, Sep 18, 19 @ 1:43 pm
“lt is understood and agreed that a single violation of any of the provisions listed above shall be good cause for termination of lease, unless otherwise provided by law. Proof of violation shall not require criminal conviction, but shall be by a preponderance of the evidence.”
So they’re booting people out of their home without any due process?There has to be some kind of hearing to plead your case.
Comment by Pacman Wednesday, Sep 18, 19 @ 2:08 pm
Q. Daughter has a sleepover birthday party for all the 8th grade females. 5 years later, one of those females commits a crime and has no other record? Does the family that hosted the sleepover get evicted? It’s sounds like the answer is yes.
Q2. Parolee brother stays with you overnight. Has commuted so crime since being paroled. Does the family get evicted?
It’s a ridiculous argument. People can’t know the future events that will occur in a family members’ friends life especially if the friend is a minor at the time they were a houseguest.
Base the eviction on the tenants and other current residents record. Don’t try to go backwards in time.
Comment by thoughts matter Wednesday, Sep 18, 19 @ 2:32 pm
Punishing A for B’s crime sounds like a bill of attainder. Not legal in America.
Comment by Last Bull Moose Wednesday, Sep 18, 19 @ 2:55 pm
Sounds like the police in that town have way too much free time on their hands. They could cut back a couple positions and use the money saved to pay into their police pension fund.
Comment by DuPage Wednesday, Sep 18, 19 @ 3:41 pm
===“We want to stay in this house,” Jessica said. “Buying a home isn’t an option for us, and with an eviction on our record, it’ll be nearly impossible to find another place to rent. I cannot believe we could end up homeless because we choose to open our home to someone in need—someone we trusted, but who was not the person he claimed to be.”
Could they even rent in Granite City then? Or does the law prohibit them from entering into a new lease?
Given a rise in homelessness due to housing prices, this is a horrible idea. I can understand a law targeted at regular problems, but a one time incident is nuts. And for a house guest it’s even more nuts.
Comment by ArchPundit Wednesday, Sep 18, 19 @ 3:55 pm