URBAN PERSPECTIVE - I woke up this morning, checked my email, and found this NC Call to Action message regarding the Community Care Facilities Ordinance. I must say that at this point not only am I plum mad about this push from Councilman Englander to get the Neighborhood Council’s position, but I am infuriated at the misguided information that Neighborhood Councils are getting about this ordinance.
If you are an elected or appointed Neighborhood Council member, be prepared to deal with this as a lone agenda item because it is way too important and complicated to list and scurry through it.
This is one of the worst pieces of propaganda in Los Angeles under the guise of neighborhood preservation standards, quality of life sustainability, and neighborhood integrity. This ordinance is not a solution; it’s an exacerbation of the symptoms of bad business, land use, and housing polices.
The Community Care Facilities Ordinance violates property rights and civil rights. Clear and simple!
This is the first I have encountered with a city proposing to impede the individual property rights of homeowners to make decisions on how and to whom they can rent. This is the most absurd infringement out there. If you are a property owner and want to rent your home to individuals in shared living like college students, on separate leases as opposed to one, what gives the city the authority under this ordinance to influence your business practice or decision-making about renting YOUR personal possession?
Although I am not a lawyer or constitutional scholar, I believe that the city is overstepping its boundaries and may be on another legal collision course with those who want to protect their individual property rights.
It’s funny how history has a way of repeating itself. We either learn from our mistakes or repeat the same failures of the past.
The Community Care Facilities Ordinance resembles the restrictive covenants from the 1920s that prohibited the purchase, lease, and occupation of a piece of property by African Americans and other ethnic groups that Los Angeles was notorious for across the country. Similar to racially restrictive covenants prohibiting ethnic groups, this ordinance is designed to keep “certain kinds” or “wrong kinds” of people out of neighborhoods and steer them to other neighborhoods that may be perceived as more accepting.
Everyone may not have compassion to encourage and promote equal housing. However, we do understand impact and costs.
Neighborhood Councils who are opting to decide on this matter consider the following:
1. Can the City of Los Angeles afford a lawsuit for the violation of civil rights? Where will the money come from to litigate complaints? Can the City defend its position of not violating property right infringement or discrimination?
2. Where will the money come from to enforce this ordinance? How will it be enforced? What criteria will be used not to create disparity? Who will be ultimately responsible? What will a judicial or trial process look like for owners who are deemed in violation of the ordinance?
3. How will the City wield its authority to address problem homes when they can’t address gang houses, drug houses, liquor and smoke shop concentrations, and problematic motels?
4. What’s wrong with the Neighborhood Prosecutor Program? How do the existing abatement laws work? Why aren’t the abatement laws working? What resources are needed to make it work? What is the cost comparison of the ordinance opposed to strong abatement enforcement?
5. Are the people who are more than likely to be impacted going to show up to your neighborhood council meetings knowing that almost 90% of attendees are home or business owners and not renters? What marketing material will be used to get broad input from all stakeholders before taking a position?
Let’s be absolutely candid about who is affected by this ordinance. It is not designed or written to address sober living solely. It is for all people who live in a shared housing situation: seniors, college students, disabled, families doubling up, and veterans. It threatens public health and public safety if people’s choice to a home they desire is obstructed.
With the millions of federal dollars of Community Development Block Grant and HOME money potentially at stake, the decision from a money prospective should be a no-brainer. The city has no way the means to back fill a catastrophic monetary loss. Let’s not replicate Texas.
Granted that this ordinance may have started with fair intentions, the city can’t afford another law or land use layer with no teeth or another historical blemish of structural segregation.
More civil rights groups, such as the NAACP, universities (UCLA and USC) and individual property rights activists need to jump on this ordinance and speak before the Neighborhood Councils and City Council.
Proponents and opponents of the Community Facilities Ordinance agree that something needs to be done about problem homes. What isn’t agreed upon is “how” to do it and “what” is the best way to resolve the issue.
Before rendering a decision, Neighborhood Councils need to weigh all the options, understand the implications, and measure the overall benefit.
As I wrote in an earlier CityWatch column, the restrictive nature of this ordinance is again shameful, wasteful, and bad for Los Angeles.
(Janet Denise Kelly is a CityWatch featured contributor. She offers more than a decade of accomplishments in the housing and nonprofit sector. Janet brings valuable insight in the areas of community and economic development. Additionally, she brings knowledge regarding the leadership and management challenges faced by large and small nonprofits that are struggling or growing organizations. She blogs at jdkellyenterprises.org and can be reached at: [email protected]) –cw
Tags: Janet Denise Kelly, Urban Perspective, Community Care Facilities Ordinance, Civil Rights Act, Los Angeles, South LA, City Attorney, Fair Housing, Mitch Englander, Neighborhood Councils,
CityWatch
Vol 10 Issue 44
Pub: June 1, 2012
