Nuisance ordinance reform a key to healthy neighborhood development
Residents of several Cincinnati neighborhoods gathered at Tuesday's meeting of the city's Public Safety Committee to vent frustration. Their concern is the pace of proposed reforms that would refine a city ordinance intended to root out crime and public nuisance hot spots.Chapter 761 of the Cincinnati Municipal Code, better known as the chronic nuisance ordinance, gives the city authorization to impose fines and other penalties for landlords whose properties are the site of significantly-above-average numbers of police calls for service. Since its creation in 2006, the ordinance has endured a number of lawsuits over its constitutionality, and underwent modification in early 2009. A council motion filed at the end of 2010 called for public hearings on the changes, in response to public concern that the changes weakened the law.That hearing was supposed to have taken place no later than January 2011. It has yet to be scheduled. And for a number of city residents, the matter is getting tiresome. The debate over the law's final form has the potential to weaken it too much, they say, and they expressed concern that the ordinance isn't being enforced in the meantime."I am so fed up and tired of having to come down here over the same issue, just to see that the ordinance is enforced," said North Avondale resident Michelle Baxter.Westwood resident Chris Kearney agreed, and added that he sees the chronic nuisance ordinance as a key to healthy development in Cincinnati neighborhoods struggling with crime and blight."I believe the chronic nuisance ordinance is a part of solving our budget situation," he said. "People are losing confidence in our neighborhoods."Council members Cecil Thomas and Charlie Winburn responded to the concerns."I agree that this should have been added to the agenda a lot sooner than now," said Thomas, who noted that part of the delay was due to changes in drafts of the revised law."The city administration has not really responded in the last seven to eight months," said Winburn. "I'm baffled at why this has taken so long."But sorting out the problem became a convoluted matter as the meeting progressed. Winburn threatened to call a special session of council to address the issue if it didn't move forward. Thomas then noted that council was still waiting to receive one version of the draft resolution - from Winburn's office. The competing versions of the revision were on the subcommittee's agenda to be addressed, but could not be addressed, since they are still technically under revision and have not been finalized as drafts.A back-and-forth discussion over draft resolutions, revisions and the timing of the issue ensued, and the subcommittee meeting ended without council being able to set a date for hearings on the chronic nuisance ordinance. Thomas expressed interest in moving forward in the next two weeks, but sounded doubtful council could address the issue before August.
