Maplewood officials have been dismissed from a woman’s suit targeting the city’s nuisance law, according to the St. Louis Record.
Maplewood was hit with a lawsuit alleging violations of the Fair Housing Act over the law in March 2017.
Maplewood’s “chronic nuisance ordinance” prohibits a resident that has drawn two or more police calls from continuing to live in the city. It doesn’t matter if they’re the victims or perpetrators.
U.S. District Judge Jean C. Hamilton agreed to dismiss Maplewood officials named in the suit on May 11 the Record reports.
See also: Maplewood sued for discrimination, targets ‘nuisance’ ordinance, Post-Dispatch editorial on Maplewood’s ‘nuisance’ ordinance
Thank you, Matt! City being villanized with WAY more here say than fact. Maplewood Housing Corporation created section 8 housing to provide more than one bedroom apartments in the Bellevue/Yale area to provide housing for handicap and folks with kids living in buildings that once attracted drugs and crime in the 1980s. This was way before civic entities in the county were doing so. However, that was done for peaceful coexistence, not to create more problems. I am witness to our residents being treated with the utmost respect and consideration—not to say their aren’t a few folks who don’t need regulation. LOTS of effort and long term consideration has gone into city regulations—for lots of good reasons and humanity considered.
That does not seem like a lot of leeway before you get removed from where you live. I am not an officer but when I listen to the news media and hear that someone has been stalked or in an abusive relationship it is not something that happens once every 6 months. There seems to be a repeating pattern, for some almost daily. Restraining orders seem to seldom work.
It seems almost like we are just moving the person to another city and letting them handle the issue if we can’t. Kind of reminds me of the Catholic Church Priest scandals.
And sometimes when the person is made to leave our city they become homeless. This law definitely needs to change. I agree with you, Mark. Abusive relationships don’t fit nicely into convenient timelines. The police are supposed to protect people who can’t protect themselves, not keep track of “nuisances.”
I’m confused, why were they dismissed? And what does this mean for the suit?
It’s 2 calls within 6 months, so don’t be a victim of a crime more than once every 6 months and you’re good to go.
Most people aren’t trying to be a victim of crime.
Exactly, it’s a terrible law.
Is that based on your reading of the Maplewood Code of Ordinances or on what others are assuming?
You can go to the city’s website for the link to the CoO and search it. There is nothing called a “chronic nuisance ordinance” in it. Among the long list of potential public nuisances is one which states that if the police are called out more than two times in a 180-day period, it is a potential nuisance. This then goes to a hearing with the city manager or his designee. There is a process to this and people are not thrown out as arbitrarily as the third paragraph of the article assumes.
Or at least that’s what I get from reading it.
Yes that’s correct, there is no hearing in front of a judge or any kind of true due process. A party that isn’t neutral is making the decision.
Are you stating that on your reading of the Maplewood Code of Ordinances or on the assumptions put forward by others? The CoO can be searched by going to the Maplewood city website and following the link.
The same section of the code says factories can’t operate in a manner hazardous to the public, animal pens cannot be offensive to the public or hazardous to the animal, and you can’t intimidate your neighbors. Terrible law?
The section pertaining to this instance says that there cannot be more than two calls to the cops in a 180-day period for domestic violence. That results in a hearing with the city manager to even determine if a nuisance even exists. There is a clear procedure here and the third paragraph portrays this case inaccurately.
I would check for the wording on that law. Is it 2 or more calls in a lifetime, a year, a week? Somewhere, there is underlying details that make the law have more reason for evicting citizens from the city.
The a link to the Maplewood Code of Ordinances is on the city’s website.
Among many other possible nuisance violations it says that it’s “more than two instances within a 180-day period”. Then the next step is that a hearing is held with the city manager or his designee to determine if a nuisance exists. When I read the CoA it does not appear to be as arbitrary as some are assuming it to be.
The a link to the Maplewood Code of Ordinances is on the city’s website.
Among many other possible nuisance violations it says that it’s “more than two instances within a 180-day period”. Then the next step is that a hearing is held with the city manager or his designee to determine if a nuisance exists. When I read the CoA it does not appear to be as arbitrary as some are assuming it to be.
Comments are closed.