Re: Limited 911 calls

1

I did not know these laws existed, though god knows I should not be surprised. But I was! People are amazingly horrible.


Posted by: redfoxtailshrub | Link to this comment | 09-30-13 10:59 AM
horizontal rule
2

They're talking about "right to petition", but shouldn't it also be an equal protection issue? Equal protection of the laws should include equal access to police/emergency services.


Posted by: Minivet | Link to this comment | 09-30-13 11:05 AM
horizontal rule
3


Equal protection of the laws should include equal access to police/emergency services.

Equal protection? That's the doctrine that protects Republican ballots in Florida. I don't see how that really applies here.


Posted by: knecht ruprecht | Link to this comment | 09-30-13 11:09 AM
horizontal rule
4

I dispute the notion that 319 out of 503 is a vast majority. Given the percentage of blacks in the population, I would agree that they are "vastly overrepresented." Precision, people.


Posted by: SP | Link to this comment | 09-30-13 11:12 AM
horizontal rule
5

2: The First Amendment right to petition claim is one of several in the complaint, they make an equal protection claim as well.


Posted by: potchkeh | Link to this comment | 09-30-13 11:16 AM
horizontal rule
6

5: Ah, good to know.


Posted by: Minivet | Link to this comment | 09-30-13 11:18 AM
horizontal rule
7

My mother was a fair housing lawyer in a previous life. One of the cases she dealt with was a woman who was evicted for having cancer. More specifically, a woman had end stage cancer, and had set up a hospital bed in her living room. Her brother had come to be her caretaker for her last few weeks of life. Her landlord evicted her, as she violated the "no overnight visitors" rule. The real reason was the landlord decided he didn't want the woman to die on his property, so I guess he would rather she died homeless in a gutter. Anyways, the "happy ending" my mother was able to forestall the eviction long enough for the woman to die (on Christmas!), though the last days of her life were filled with stress of possible impending homelessness, and my mother was just super pissed off.


Posted by: Britta | Link to this comment | 09-30-13 12:01 PM
horizontal rule
8

The real reason was the landlord decided he didn't want the woman to die on his property

Was he superstitious?

People are amazingly horrible.

Your mom sounds great though.


Posted by: peep | Link to this comment | 09-30-13 12:08 PM
horizontal rule
9

Her landlord evicted her, as she violated the "no overnight visitors" rule. The real reason was the landlord decided he didn't want the woman to die on his property,

The "real reason" is so grotesque that it distracts from the real issue here, which is that even the stated reason is totally illegitimate and would be impermissible in a sane world.


Posted by: urple | Link to this comment | 09-30-13 12:19 PM
horizontal rule
10

Shit is fucked up. And bullshit.

Not applicable to Britta's mom.


Posted by: CharleyCarp | Link to this comment | 09-30-13 5:25 PM
horizontal rule
11

I really recommend Matthew Desmond's research on this, cited in the Lithwick piece. The situation really is fucked up. I'm glad Desmond and others are making some headway in getting attention for the issue and trying various tactics to fix things.


Posted by: | Link to this comment | 09-30-13 7:18 PM
horizontal rule
12

11 was me.


Posted by: Bave | Link to this comment | 09-30-13 7:33 PM
horizontal rule
13

Matt Desmond's ongoing work on this is really good.


Posted by: Gonerill | Link to this comment | 10- 1-13 3:29 AM
horizontal rule
14

9

Arguably, the eviction was illegal under the Americans w/ Disabilities Act, which requires "reasonable accommodation" on the part of landlords. Cancer patients aren't automatically considered disabled, so it's a whole lot of rigamarole for someone dying to have to go through. But yeah. People are assholes.


Posted by: Britta | Link to this comment | 10- 1-13 6:17 AM
horizontal rule
15

What I really don't get about this is, even leaving the domestic violence issue to one side, in what context it makes sense to use 911 calls as a measure of who should be evicted. Obviously, if someone's calling 911 all the time, there's some kind of problem, but identifying the problem as the person who's calling in the police seems wrong. Eviction after a third call that had been identified as frivolous, somehow, maybe? But other than that, why?

I'm not seeing what the people who devised this system thought of as it working properly.


Posted by: LizardBreath | Link to this comment | 10- 1-13 8:41 AM
horizontal rule
16

If you only worry about city spending, it works properly as it is.


Posted by: Moby Hick | Link to this comment | 10- 1-13 8:50 AM
horizontal rule
17

Also if you think that people with problems are inherently dirty, then you want to make life harder for them.


Posted by: heebie-geebie | Link to this comment | 10- 1-13 9:27 AM
horizontal rule
18

It operates just like Greyhound Therapy, except this way you don't need to pay for bus tickets.


Posted by: Moby Hick | Link to this comment | 10- 1-13 9:28 AM
horizontal rule
19

What happens, basically, is if there are too many 911 calls from a property, it gets designated as a nuisance property. Depending on the local ordinance, this brings an escalating series of consequences for the landlord -- often a letter from the local police saying there's a problem and asking what the LL is going to do to solve it. Many of these ordinances require the landlord to file a nuisance abatement plan with the police, who typically rubber stamp it. Oh, and "property" is defined not per unit but per building. So obviously the easiest way for the landlord and/or the police to get rid of the problem is to evict the tenant who's making all the 911 calls. The genius of the ordinances is that all the government is doing is saying "there's a problem at this property, and the LL needs to fix it." How the private landlord takes care of it is mostly out of the government's hands.


Posted by: Bave | Link to this comment | 10- 1-13 11:33 PM
horizontal rule