Cleveland City Council鈥檚 safety committee is hitting the pause button on new legislation cracking down on properties with repeated complaints of criminal activity.
There are questions about whether the city is enforcing the law already on the books and whether other city laws get in the way of enforcement, said Safety Committee Chair Michael Polensek during a meeting Wednesday.
鈥淲e know we have to do something. Summer is coming upon us and we continue to get these nuisance problems in our neighborhoods, complaints. I know because I get them,鈥� said Polensek.
Under current law which was passed in 2018, the city can first give property owners a chance to address any issues at their properties once three 鈥渘uisance activities鈥� in a six-month period have occurred.
There鈥檚 a long list of activities that fall under the category of a nuisance, including disorderly conduct, use of alcohol by minors, endangering a child, noise violations, littering and gambling offenses.
The proposed legislation would add vehicle noise issues like removed mufflers and street racing in an attempt to address people using parking lots for donuts or racing.
Under the new legislation, the owner of a property declared a nuisance must come up with a plan to prevent future issues and, if that doesn鈥檛 work, pay a fine each time police respond to a call at the property.
Under current law, enforcement is based on either an arrest or citation issued for conduct at the property. The legislation expands probable cause to include witness statements to a police officer. And that raises questions, said Councilmember Brian Kazy.
鈥淲here you鈥檝e just got an angry neighbor who doesn鈥檛 like their neighbor and now is just calling, for whatever reason, and this is just becoming too broad. And are people going to be targeted if they鈥檙e not liked in a neighborhood?鈥� said Kazy.
The expansion of what qualifies as a nuisance is meant to address officers frequently arriving to calls and finding that everyone at the property is gone already.
Property owners can appeal the public safety director鈥檚 nuisance property declaration to the Board of Zoning Appeals.
City officials did not provide the total number of properties declared nuisances or the fines levied in the past year during Wednesday鈥檚 council meeting.
鈥淲e don鈥檛 know if it鈥檚 even worth it, on this side of the table we don鈥檛 know if two letters have gone out,鈥� said Kazy. 鈥淎re we doing this just to look good, just to sound good? We have no factual evidence that what is currently on the books is or is not working because we don鈥檛 have the numbers or the statistics to back it up.鈥�
Council asked for those numbers at their next committee meeting.
The legislation also adds a new category of people whose conduct could be tied to a property. Currently, it鈥檚 just owners, inhabitants and invited guests. This legislation adds 鈥渁 person associated with a property.鈥�
That was added to hold business owners accountable when people outside a business engage in criminal activity, said Assistant Safety Director Jason Shachner.
鈥淭here were issues with patrons visiting a bar, they were blocking traffic,鈥� said Shachner. 鈥淭he owner of the bar wasn鈥檛 adequately controlling their own patrons, but we couldn鈥檛 hold that person responsible or declare that a nuisance property because originally the only people that could be doing a nuisance activity was an owner or employee or invitee.鈥�
Council plans to continue discussion of the proposed ordinance next week.
