“Right to Assistance” law would make Iowa’s local nuisance ordinances better

Ongoing discussions between state lawmakers and City of Cedar Rapids officials have kept a possible 'Right to Assistance” bill in the headlines, but they have yet to produce solutions that will enable cities to target nuisance properties while protecting victims of crime, including domestic abuse.

That's unfortunate. These two goals are not mutually exclusive. Nor do we believe the original intent of nuisance abatement ordinances, which have been passed by several Iowa cities including Cedar Rapids, were to address one at the expense of the other.

Last month, this board commended the Iowa House for unanimous passage of a 'Right to Assistance” bill that would protect crime victims requesting police assistance from facing eviction under such ordinances. We urged the Senate to move forward with the measure.

Officials in Cedar Rapids, who oppose the bill, asked us to look more deeply into the issue. Most compellingly, they were concerned that our editorial position might dissuade crime victims from calling police for help.

That fact is worth repeating: Victims always should call police for help. As we noted in our earlier editorial, protective police calls are exempt from the SAFE-CR nuisance abatement program.

But further review has only strengthened our conviction that more must be done to clarify protections for crime victims.

We repeat our call to action here, with two additions.

Lawmakers should carefully review the bill's wording to ensure it would not interfere with local nuisance ordinances that do provide victims adequate protection from retaliation when they report crime or abuse.

And municipalities, including Cedar Rapids, should revise ordinances, procedures and outreach efforts to make sure those protections are clear, uniformly applied and understood within their jurisdictions.

Cedar Rapids' Nuisance Abatement Ordinance was introduced in December 2012 and adopted the following month. The ordinance outlines what defines a property as well as the 1,000 foot extension, or more than three football field distance, for which the property owner and tenant are responsible. While incidents of domestic violence may be designated as nuisance activities, reads the ordinance, they will not be a factor in determining penalties.

City officials have assured us that victims of other crimes are treated with similar consideration, providing a 'Standard Operating Procedure” document that details how the nuisance abatement ordinance is to be applied. This SOP document, dated March 3, 2015 - one day before the 'Right to Assistance” bill was introduced in the Iowa House - clarifies some current applications of the ordinance. It also muddies the waters in other ways.

For example, calling for police assistance, according to this document, does not automatically designate the caller as a crime victim. If staff reviewing the incident determine that a tenant or property owner knew, or should have known, criminal activity was taking place, and took no steps to stop it, the activity will be designated as a nuisance, even if they took steps to report the crime.

We understand the need for flexibility in applying nuisance rules on a case-by-case basis, but there is convincing evidence the ambiguity in Cedar Rapids' ordinance and procedure is leading to uncertainty by tenants, landlords and advocacy groups regarding what might constitute a nuisance.

The American Civil Liberties Union of Iowa provided examples showing how this confusion has negatively affected victims seeking help from Waypoint Domestic Violence Victim Services:

A victim who received a civil protective order and was told by a judge to phone for emergency assistance if her abuser violated the order. When her abuser began showing up, she did make calls for assistance. Afterward, her landlord noted how such calls could have consequences for the property. The ACLU contends the discussion sent a clear message that calling law enforcement could result in eviction.

Victims of domestic violence have said since their situations often result in multiple calls for assistance, it has become more difficult to find rental properties. Even after assurances from city officials that calls designated as domestic violence won't result in penalties against property owners, it is clear that not all landlords have received the message.

It was the end of March when members of the Iowa House unanimously passed the statewide 'Right to Assistance” bill. Since then, it has been buried in committee by Sen. Rob Hogg, a resident of Cedar Rapids. Hogg believes the proposed state law as it's written is too broad and would pre-empt local ordinances.

'If citizens do not like provisions of a local ordinance,” Hogg wrote in a response he said he's been sending to constituents concerned about the delay, 'their remedy is generally with their local government.”

In most instances, we would agree. But victims of domestic violence, especially those who are attempting to place roots in new communities, deserve consistency and protection. Victims of crime, even those who unintentionally invite perpetrators onto their property, need assurances they will not be punished for seeking help.

Frankly, we were surprised last month to learn the 'Right to Assistance” bill was such a source of contention. As we wrote then, 'If the victims' protections Cedar Rapids and other cities tout as part of their nuisance ordinances are in place and being leveraged efficiently, codifying the exception as part of state law should not be an issue.”

Properly crafted and applied, nuisance ordinances can do much to make our communities safer and more welcoming places for all.

Iowans deserve clear boundaries, not complex ordinances with unclear applications and imprecise definitions. Above all else, Iowans throughout the state deserve to live in safe neighborhoods.

There still is time to pass the 'Right to Assistance” bill, even as cities such as Cedar Rapids review their ordinances to ensure they are working as intended.

We see no good reason to wait.

' Comments: editorial@thegazette.com; (319) 398-8469