|
REGULAR MEETING
<br />NOVEMBER 28, 2016
<br />Councilmember Scott responded that Officer Lane files a report on chronic nuisance yearly,
<br />around June. He stated that he was willing to put it on the Council calendar, six (6) months a
<br />year. He stated that the operation has run smoothly up to these tweaks, which came about
<br />because of what Officer Lane, Legal, Code Enforcement, and even the large complexes were
<br />seeing.
<br />Councilmember Broden responded, I think that evaluative process would bring in some voices. If
<br />that is institutionalized as a mark that we hit, that we are reviewing it as a broader group, I think
<br />that that should benefit everybody all around. Thank you for your willingness to look at that.
<br />Councilmember Scott responded, We will do a review six (6) months from now.
<br />Those of the public wishing to speak in favor of the bill:
<br />Sharon Banicki, 3822 Ford St., South Bend, IN, stated that this situation was a double -edged
<br />sword. Ms. Banicki generally considers the ordinance a good thing, but thinks that it focuses too
<br />much on larger complexes, letting smaller properties slip through the cracks. She stated, My
<br />mom's neighbor —who has had the Police out there every other day for the last month —isn't on
<br />the list. I don't know how to get them on the list, but the police officers even know the people
<br />that are involved when they're called out there. Outside of that, she considers the measure a
<br />wonderful thing.
<br />Those of the public wishing to speak in opposition of the bill:
<br />Jesse Davis, P.O. Box 10205, South Bend, IN, stated that the only reason he is opposed to this is
<br />that he feels that apartment complexes are offered too much leniency. He stated, I don't see
<br />where it's going to be a benefit to a lot of them to have more calls. You're basically giving in to
<br />them. He was curious to know by what criteria a property is classified as a chronic nuisance and
<br />how he might see the long list of properties Officer Lane had to investigate. He stated, I know
<br />there's a neighborhood on the southeast side off Lear Street, Calvert area, Randolph —man, the
<br />cops are over there at particular houses constantly. There's been guns, there's been drugs, there's
<br />been stolen vehicles. None of those places are on the Chronic Nuisance List. If it's only going to
<br />be geared at apartment complexes, then let's make it that. It need to come into the
<br />neighborhoods.
<br />Myron Larimore, 402 East South Street, South Bend, IN, stated that he was generally in favor of
<br />the ordinance. Realtors and landlords have suggested to him that the Police should call them
<br />every time there is a call to the property, as opposed to every three (3) times or four (4) times.
<br />Mr. Lambert stated that in conjunction with the Landlord Registration, this should be easy to
<br />implement.
<br />Ms. Sullivan, 1209 Pyle Avenue, South Bend, IN, explained that her husband is a veteran
<br />afflicted by mental illness and that, as a result, she has been unsure as to whether or not her home
<br />would end up in violation of the ordinance. Ms. Sullivan stated, Officially, I've had several calls.
<br />It is unclear to me where I fall. She explained that she had to protest to the Police Department to
<br />have her address show that a mentally ill veteran resided there. The code word that I use, Ms.
<br />Sullivan stated, is "Crisis for a Veteran." They sent police officers out to deescalate the situation
<br />and not use excessive force. Then they send emergency services and whatever else is needed. It
<br />took several months to get that on. She stated that she did not understand why she received
<br />excessive calls for so long before she could get the help that she needed. She did not understand
<br />why the responsibility had completely fallen upon her.
<br />Councilmember Scott returned to the podium to offer a rebuttal. Councilmember Scott explained
<br />that the ordinance is designed for everything from single - family homes to apartment complexes.
<br />The issue was that the process did not feel equitable to larger complexes. It is scalable to the size
<br />of the residence. The ordinance is there to hold people who are living in the City accountable for
<br />being good neighbors to each other. Though tenants are often the source of the issue, it is the
<br />responsibility of the landowner, as they signed on their tenants and are collecting a profit from
<br />them. Councilmember Scott stated that he felt that the scalability of the ordinance would have to
<br />be reviewed in time, as it is new. He expressed a concern that the operation was possibly
<br />growing too large, that there were too many calls being processed regarding larger complexes,
<br />13
<br />
|