Cities across America require landlords to evict domestic violence VICTIMS

[pnwmom]

who require police assistance, or face penalties.

I guess this is one way for cities to earn some money.

http://www.aclu.org/blog/womens-rights-lgbt-rights-racial-justice-criminal-law-reform/shut-or-get-out-pa-city-punishes

Under Norristown's "disorderly behavior ordinance," the city penalizes landlords and tenants when the police respond to three instances of "disorderly behavior" within a four-month period. The ordinance specifically includes "domestic disturbances" as disorderly behavior that triggers enforcement of the law.

After her first "strike," Ms. Briggs was terrified of calling the police. She did not want to do anything to risk losing her home. So even when her now ex-boyfriend attacked her with a brick, she did not call. And later, when he stabbed her in the neck, she was still too afraid to reach out. But both times, someone else did call the police. Based on these "strikes," the city pressured her landlord to evict. After a housing court refused to order an eviction, the city said it planned to condemn the property and forcibly remove Ms. Briggs from her home. The ACLU intervened, and the city did not carry out its threats, and even agreed to repeal the ordinance. But just two weeks later, Norristown quietly passed a virtually identical ordinance that imposes fines on landlords unless they evict tenants who obtain police assistance, including for domestic violence.

Today, the ACLU, the ACLU of Pennsylvania, and the law firm Pepper Hamilton filed a federal lawsuit on behalf of Ms. Briggs, challenging the ordinance. These laws violate tenants' First Amendment right to petition their government, which includes the right to contact law enforcement. They also violate the federal Violence Against Women Act, which protects many domestic violence victims from eviction based on the crimes committed against them, and the Fair Housing Act, which prohibits discrimination based on sex, and was enacted 45 years ago this month. The ACLU has long argued that evictions based on domestic violence can discriminate against women, because such evictions are often motivated by gender stereotypes that hold victims responsible for the abuse they experience, and because the vast majority of victims are women.

Norristown is not alone. Cities and towns across the United States have similar laws, sometimes referred to as "nuisance ordinances" or "crime-free ordinances." We represented a domestic violence victim in Illinois, who after years of experiencing abuse, decided to reach out to the police for the first time. The police charged her husband with domestic battery and resisting arrest. Yet only a few days later, the police department sent her landlord a notice, instructing the landlord to evict the victim under the local ordinance based on the arrest. The message was clear: calling the police leads to homelessness.

[Kalidurga]

1. I have said this before.

Keep violent people in jail longer. We need to expand the three strikes idea. I am not against life in prison for anyone who commits attempted murder 3 times.

[pnwmom]

2. Huh?

[Lady Freedom Returns]

3. But this is about a woman who had to have the police out three times due to

an abusive (ex) boyfriend.

She is now homeless due to needing help. It is the victim that is being punished here, not the perpetrator.

[freshwest]

6. If he did it three times, he should be in jail, is what I think it being said there.

Last edited Fri Apr 26, 2013, 09:01 PM - Edit history (1)

If he'd been kept in custody from the first assault, there would not have been three of them. I think that's what that is.

The real problem is economic.

People stay in relationships if they have no other means of support, and either will not testify, or will ask to have the perp released, or just not report. It's not just the woman.

Those without the means to take care of themselves end up on welfare and that's the problem behind allowing this to go on. I know it's a humiliating process to go through, having helped women who were victims of DV do paperwork for themselves and their children.

I remember one question they demanded for each of her three children, although they were all from her marriage. It asked how many times they had sex and did he withdraw while doing it.

As if they had to prove paternity by asking that, as if they didn't know she was in a protection program for battered and endangered women set up after he tried to kill her. The children existed, that's the issue. No one should be forced to fill out forms like that.

[Lady Freedom Returns]

8. Yeah, but the main story is about the woman being evicted from her home due to police coming out...

three different times. She called them the first time, but then neighbors did the other two. So now she is out of a home. With this type of law in place, many victims won't call for help.

[freshwest]

9. Yes, shafting the victim. But with a system of supports in place, she'd have left the first time.

Faced with two bad choices, homelessness or abuse, is not really a choice. You cannot separate the two in this case.

[peacebird]

17. Many abuse victims have been so torn down by the abuser that they feel worthless & unworthy of help

They have been brutalized into believing THEY deserve it.

They should not be further abused and rendered homeless for finally crying out for help.

[freshwest]

19. What would lead you to think I don't know that very well? This law is a symptom of a bigger problem.

At this point, lawmakers are endorsing the abuse and giving the abuser a free pass. It doesn't have to be this way. It seems the state involved is going far right, and extremely anti-woman.

Isn't this the same one whose governor told women to just close their eyes while being forced to endure a transvaginal ultrasound against their will?

The hatred of women in this country is infecting everything. Enforcement of the law against abuse shouldn't be the sole responsibility of the abused person, for the reasons you state and which I know very, very well. They are not free to make anything other than a forced choice they should have never had to make. She called the first time, and he was allowed to get at her repeatedly.

I'm with the person who wants these guys kept in jail for as long as it takes to get through to them that this is not really a 'domestic' matter, hiding under private relationships, but a real crime against all of society, that will not be tolerated.

In order for the victim to get free, strong supports have to be put in place. I've lived in states which didn't enforce the laws under the aegis of it's 'family.' Also lived in others that went the distance no matter the cost, to free these folks to make better lives away from abuse.

The law is backwards, but just the symptom of a greater disease, enabling abuse for whatever stupid reason, and treating victims as unworthy of support. Denying their rights to be safe at home, that they are humans who need help.

[peacebird]

20. I apologize, that is not what I thought you were saying. It appears we are in violent agreement.

Please forgive my knee jerk reaction.

[freshwest]

23. Thanks. This thread seems to bring that out. I'm gone, see you later.

[pnwmom]

37. Maybe it was her place. He's her ex-boyfriend. How do we know she didn't

kick him out?

I agree that the article was vague about this, but it would certainly be possible. She could have kicked him out of her place, and he could have come back later and assaulted her.

[freshwest]

38. If he'd been kept in jail, it wouldn't have happened, no matter what. She called the first time...

The neighbors called the next two times. It was an ongoing crime in progress that was not taken care of. So much is let go under the banner of 'family' or 'domestic.' It's time to stop this diminishment of assault based on place or relationship. Letting these things go on affects all of society ineventually. The perps don't learn; the person hurt is suffering disruption that may lead to unemployment or health problems from stress, much less from the damages of the assault; and any children in the family will be taught a bad example. I've seen this let go and also seen it dealt with very strongly. The more powerful that the intervention is, the better in the cases I've seen.

But RWers call that a police state tactic. Remember the Inforwars fan couple who took their children and fled to Cuba?

Those children had been taken away from them because they were dealing drugs and talking doomsday stuff - possibly they were going to commit murder suicide. The kids' grandmother was taking care of them. Then it was trumpeted on CT radio about how bad social services were - you can bet if he'd been slapping his wife around it would have been 'family values' time again.

There are big problems in all of these cases of children being removed, but this woman could have used some help, serious help to stop this happening. Instead, she and possibly some children are having havoc in their lives first from the perp, second from legislators or council members who were probably against her getting any help anyway.

Of course, we're all just talking, speculating and only see one part of these short stories. You're right, they don't give enough information. Just think how many thousands of times this is happening, and never makes the news...

I'm sad about the state of our society when no one offers any alternatives.

[TalkingDog]

10. Reading the article is helpful

nt

[Canuckistanian]

31. So punish the victim?

I'm not comprehending your point here

[Kalidurga]

42. I don't get where people are seeing me say that.

I said we need to keep violent people in jail much longer than we do. We need to stop treating domestic violence differently than a bar room fight which can land you in jail longer.

[freshwest]

4. Franken discussed how many women and children were made homeless from DV. At that time, he still

couldn't convince his colleagues to vote for the VAWA which funds shelters.

At the same time, some GOP governors told women being abused to stay in their marriages so they wouldn't be on welfare with their children. Part of their 'family values' meme.

All about money. Some states are aggressive about stopping VA. Others have even gone so far as to defund all the shelters and then change some laws to make DV a non-jailable offense.

This sounds like an area that is going in the wrong direction. Hope the ACLU keeps on top of this.

And we still can't pass the ERA.

[pnwmom]

5. They wouldn't need so many shelters if they didn't make landlords evict them.

This is criminally insane.

[freshwest]

7. The majority of homeless were not evicted, but escaped from home.

The law is terrible, but not the real cause of the homelessness. The DV and lack of housing for the poor is the cause.

The ACLU is coming to catch the horse after the barn door was left open for many years. In a way, this law is saying states or cities no longer want to stop DV nor house the victims.

That's the end result. Although it may have been enacted at the behest of landlords themselves, because other tenants will complain of noise and be afraid of the perps, and DV usually involves a good deal of property damage to the residence.

Stop this law; then go to the root cause of the problem, or another law will take its place.

[davsand]

11. While I'm not defending these laws I understand how they sometimes happen.

Let's say you have that ONE house in your neighborhood that is owned by a landlord that rents to ANYONE that shows up--the child rapists, the meth makers, the insane dude that stands on the front porch taking potshots at kids and pets. Pretty soon, you have almost a groove in the street where the police get dispatched to that house ALL the time. It sounds extreme, but it happens, and it happens anyplace you can think of. Small towns, cities--it happens with amazing regularity. Sooner or later somebody gets a call demanding that "mess" be cleaned up for the good of the community. That is exactly where those "frequent or repeated police call" ordinances come from. Again, I stress, I am not saying this is right, but if you have ever lived in proximity to one of "those" places you most likely feel a certain amount of joy to see the landlords forced to deal with the problem.

Several years ago we lived across the street from one of "those" houses. This was a mixed neighborhood of rental and owner occupied houses with lot of seniors and young families. In the time we lived in that neighborhood we saw police and fire calls to that house about once a night. Guys were arrested for selling drugs on the front porch, there were horrible fights (I saw a guy getting beaten by two other guys with an axe handle and a ball bat one especially memorable night.) Another "high" point was the raid by some kind of law enforcement group that involved a battering ram and cops hiding behind cars and dumpsters. We had people walk across the street and attempt to force open our front door--then they'd walk back across the street to that house. It wasn't just once or twice either. Literally, it was a shithole. Finally, one night the resident geniuses managed to light the whole mess on fire and it burned down. Improved the neighborhood hugely, and after that we rarely saw or needed the police calls.

My daughter's high school had a lock down earlier this year when a tenant two doors down the street went into meltdown and threatened to a police officer to go "shoot up the school." This guy has a history of chasing high school students and making threats, and they actually had an Order of Protection on this guy to keep him off school property. That particular landlord is at best, "absentee," and this situation has been ongoing for more than three years--yet that guy has stayed in that house the whole time. The guy is actually in lock up right now based on his threat to "shoot up the school" and it's sounding like he's gonna go away for a while, but if he gets out are they gonna continue to let him live two doors down from that school? REALLY??

Now, I realize that a house with domestic violence happening is not the same thing as the crime laden shithole I lived near, nor is it the same as the batshit crazy guy threatening the high school. When these nuisance property ordinances go on the books, however, it is based on frequency of emergency calls rather than type of calls. So, you end up with situations like Norristown and countless others that can penalize the law abiding or worse yet, the victims. I'm not saying it's right, but I am saying that once you see a lackluster landlord in action--allowing a shithole situation to go on--you start to understand where this stuff come from.

Seems to me that maybe the thing to do would be to put local laws on the books that mandate the removal of any abuser for a minimum of 24 hours, or maybe some sort of aggressive counseling program to the victims--I honestly don't know what would be enough in those cases--but I'm not willing to completely abandon local laws forcing landlords to be responsible.

YMMV.



Laura

[pnwmom]

15. Thanks for the context, davsand. n/t

[revmclaren]

12. Many women cant escape.

They pay the ultimate price for a broken system.

[truedelphi]

13. Thank you for posting this. It really sickens me.

I lived this. In total. It was circa early 1990's, pre-Oj and Nicole Simpson. . I had a "fellow" renter who stalked me. He lived down the hall from me.

Three Am, and many nights he would bang on my door to tell me to turn my music down. (There was no music on - I was sound asleep in a quiet apartment when he banged on my door.)

When I called police, they would say I had no rights as he paid rent too. And if I didn't like his actions, maybe I
should move. They would say I provoked him. When I stayed away from my own residence, to avoid this happening, then he would threaten my thirteen year old son.

He made death threats. Others in the building heard these. Nothing happened. Not even when the witnesses made reports to the police on my behalf.

Luckily I won some money in an unrelated court proceeding, and was able to move out of there. Right before my luck changed, I actually thought of getting a damn gun and just blowing the guy away - how dare he threaten my son! (If that had been how my fate had played out, I imagine I would be typing this from a women's correctional facility right now!)

I can't believe all these many years since, and this kind of behavior is still going on. With the police and society still blaming the victim. It is beyond disgusting.

[pnwmom]

14. What a story, truedelphi.

I'm so glad you were able to escape that horrible situation -- without getting yourself into an even worse one!

[truedelphi]

18. One statistic I have memorized from my brush with

an idea of jail for me - should I end up a murderess - women who kill abusive husbands average between eight and fifteen years in jail. Men who kill their wives usually don't get more than six! And this guy was not a husband or someone I even dated - just a guy whose place was down the hall from mine!

[pnwmom]

32. I'm not surprised by that at all, sadly enough.

That's pretty much the way it usually is.

[Initech]

16. This is so fucking wrong on so many levels.

[SemperEadem]

21. another salvo lobbed in the war against women...

[Savannahmann]

22. Those in cities with this kind of law

Bum rush the city council meeting and demand justice for domestic violence victims.

They'll cancel the meetings, and order everyone to leave, and then do it again the next month.

[pennylane100]

24. Thank goodness the ACLU is helping her.

I think my membership may have expired, I will definitely renew it.

[AZ Progressive]

25. God Bless America!

I can't believe that our culture is currently still that savage that even some cities are cold hearted enough to punish female victims like this (of course, this is the same culture that thinks that healthcare isn't a right.)

Seriously, we need a third old fashioned feminist movement.

[hopemountain]

26. informative and the lights went on

because i worked with families who were battered and i was not aware of this aspect in the tangled morass of dysfunction in the community not just for the families. grateful to the attorneys and legal aides who are committed to social justice.

[DisgustipatedinCA]

27. Question for those with legal chops

Doesn't this constitute a violation of the Equal Protection clause?

[pnwmom]

36. Good question. The article mentions other violations.

"Today, the ACLU, the ACLU of Pennsylvania, and the law firm Pepper Hamilton filed a federal lawsuit on behalf of Ms. Briggs, challenging the ordinance. These laws violate tenants' First Amendment right to petition their government, which includes the right to contact law enforcement. They also violate the federal Violence Against Women Act, which protects many domestic violence victims from eviction based on the crimes committed against them, and the Fair Housing Act, which prohibits discrimination based on sex, and was enacted 45 years ago this month. The ACLU has long argued that evictions based on domestic violence can discriminate against women, because such evictions are often motivated by gender stereotypes that hold victims responsible for the abuse they experience, and because the vast majority of victims are women."

[Recursion]

28. DV calls are where most injuries and deaths to police happen

I join in the outrage against this law but I also have seen very close up enough abusive relationship to understand the frustration that leads to this kind of thing. "Just stop taking them back" sounds much easier than it is if you're not in the abusive relationship. But then again police know they're in danger every time they take one of those calls, and the neighbors feel threatened too.

I like the point upthread that if we had real punishment for abusers and could actually enforce restraining orders (and, yes, this sometimes will mean also jailing the abuse victim if the victim doesn't follow through -- I've seen that, too) this law wouldn't be an issue.

This is an unacceptable solution to the burden that DV places on neighbors and police, but the situation it was a mistaken attempt to fix is unacceptable too.

[pnwmom]

33. The law could also take effect in a stalking situation,

if the offender was allowed on the loose.

[Recursion]

35. Abusers are good at getting the victims to want them to come back

And due process moves much slower than the dynamics of an abusive relationship; that's another problem. Protective orders are supposed to separate the couple until a trial, but the trial probably never happens because the court system is overworked and (depressingly) the couple has generally remonstrated by that time. That cycle is what's so frustrating.

[KauaiK]

29. Not in Hawaii

It is illegal to remove or evict a VICTIM of domestic violence and victims are required to particpate in state funded programs for victims of domestic violence to break the cycle.

[freshwest]

39. Same here. It's a societal problem, not just that family.

[drm604]

30. Norristown?

That's my town! WTF?

A law like this should only target the troublemakers. It needs to differentiate between the aggresors and their victims

[Politicalboi]

34. Gee doesn't that work out well for the GOP who

Cut police forces so they don't have time to go back and forth to the same home 10 times in 6 months. Then evict the poor victim. That means the perp has the power for her to lose her home if he acts violently even outside her house. The police come, and it's over.

[Mopar151]

40. We must have order.

[TheMadMonk]

41. And just how many ways can these laws be abused?

Apply them to DV and homeless shelters.

Want a tennant out? Simple, just arrange to have the cops called on the address three times. Pay some homeless folk to go around and make a scene, or just simply have a buddy in dispatch cobble up the necessary paperwork.

What happens with an abuse victim who did make a break and move away? How many abusive ex-partners will trigger these laws just to make "the bitch" suffer, or leave her with no choice but to come back?

What of properties owned by the victim? Can the city require a bank foreclose and evict? Or can it do as has been threatened and simply condemn the property as unfit for habitation and force the tennant out that way.