Slog News & Arts

Line Out

Music & Nightlife

« If You're Going to Get All Sha... | Boy Nearly Beaten to Death Has... »

Tuesday, June 17, 2008

Dunn vs. Dunn

posted by on June 17 at 14:30 PM

kramer.jpg

Yesterday afternoon, King County Council member Reagan Dunn, a Republican, introduced a bill that would penalize landlords who don’t try to quell troublesome tenants. The bill would apply to rentals in unincorporated King County suspected of harboring drugs, prostitution, or felonious activity:

Notice may be sent whenever the sheriff’s office has probable cause to believe that criminal conduct has occurred on the rental property….

If a landlord receives more than three notices… regarding instances of criminal conduct committed in the same dwelling unit or anywhere on the rental property by the same tenant or any guest of the tenant within any six-month period, the landlord is guilty of a civil infraction if they have not taken reasonable steps to reduce the likelihood that criminal conduct will reoccur on the rental property.

But Eric Dunn—an attorney who handles housing cases and is not related to Reagan Dunn—says the bill “raises a lot of constitutional problems.” While it requires officers to have probable cause that a crime has been committed before notifying the landlord, it doesn’t require any charges or conviction against the tenant. In other words, a tenant wouldn’t have to be guilty to be evicted. And although the bill targets landlords, Eric Dunn says the tenants would bear the brunt of evictions. However, those tenants would have no legal recourse to prove their innocence. “That’s a due process problem,” says Dunn.

“Under this ordinance, all that would have to happen is the police have to be called,” says Dunn (the lawyer again). “The police come but they may not do anything… at that point, the landlord is obligated to take reasonable steps.”

Dunn (the council member now) didn’t return calls for comment, but the bill itself points to some of the thinking behind it: “Existing county laws have proven ineffective in encouraging rental housing property owners who have criminal activity occurring on their property, to take the proper steps necessary to help the sheriff’s office in stopping crime.”

But pointing to a lack of county laws seems disingenuous. Federal law makes it illegal to maintain meth labs and other drug-involved premises—a woman in New Hampshire convicted earlier this month faces 20 years in prison for running a crack house. Under state and federal law, police can raid a home to make an arrest. And landlords who have a preponderance of evidence that a crime has been committed can evict the tenant under existing laws.

Obviously, nobody wants to live near a crack house, but this bill could, at worst, be applied to renters who have no way to prove their innocence, and would, at best, just push crack houses from neighborhood to neighborhood.

RSS icon Comments

1

This would totally be the end of the Biltmore.

Posted by Mr. Poe | June 17, 2008 2:43 PM
2

Dominique, nique, nique s'en allait tout simplement
Routier pauvre et chantant
En tous chemins, en tous lieux, il ne parle que du bon Dieu!

Posted by The Singing Nun | June 17, 2008 2:45 PM
3

So just keep the crack house in its chosen neighborhood?

Posted by him | June 17, 2008 2:46 PM
4

@3) If it's actually a crack house, there are laws to bust those people and evict them under existing laws. But people shouldn't be evicted when police and the landlord haven't proven wrongdoing.

Posted by Dominic Holden | June 17, 2008 2:50 PM
5

Anything that encourages crack heads to stop renting and start building some equity is good in my book.

Hey, Dominic, is it true that I-75 used paid signature gatherers? That's not how I remember it but what do I know?

Posted by elenchos | June 17, 2008 2:50 PM
6

this is rural idiocy!

Posted by Bellevue Ave | June 17, 2008 2:52 PM
7

Not only does the War on Drugs not work, we're gonna force someone else to do it.

Posted by Sirkowski | June 17, 2008 3:57 PM
8

Sounds bad initially but... It calls for a CIVIL penalty on the LANDLORD who, presumably, will remain under obligation to follow all applicable laws re tenancy. Time to get the rusted Chevy's out of the front yard.

Posted by umvue | June 17, 2008 4:08 PM
9

I smell a class action lawsuit.

Posted by Greg | June 17, 2008 4:15 PM
10

This is a terrible idea.

In essence, it puts the landlords in a position of being de-facto law enforcement, with no training in the law, no jury, no judicial oversight, and no way to appeal.

Posted by Reverse Polarity | June 17, 2008 4:17 PM
11

Well, since "crying like a fucking baby while arguing with your girlfriend until 3am last night" isn't a felony, what good does this do me? Also, when people are sentenced for felonies, they tend not to be your neighbors any longer, so what's the point?

Shitty neighbors suck, but I'll bet you $100 this legislation is secretly about someone parking in a spot in front of Mr. Dunn's house that he thinks belongs to him.

Posted by Dougsf | June 17, 2008 4:46 PM
12

Another Republicant solution. MORE HOMELESS, MORE PRISONS. What next? Foreclosure if your child gets caught smoking a joint?

Posted by Vince | June 18, 2008 2:32 PM
13

The legislation was endorsed by King County's Sheriff and it has bipartison support.

Posted by Amy | June 19, 2008 9:54 AM

Comments Closed

Comments are closed on this post.