Sean Gray (University of Virginia (UVA) School of Law) has posted Chronic Nuisance Ordinances, Impossible Choices, and State Constitutions (109 Virginia Law Review Online (2023)) on SSRN. Here is the abstract:
Hundreds of towns and cities across the United States have chronic nuisance ordinances (CNOs) in effect. Facially neutral, these laws let local governments designate a property as a “nuisance” when the police visit it too often in response to emergency calls. The municipality orders the property owner, often a landlord, to “abate the nuisance,” often an implicit command to evict the “nuisance” tenant. If the landlord refuses, the locality retains broad discretion to impose heavy fines upon the landlord, revoke their business license, or even seize the property. The result? Starkly disproportionate enforcement against communities of color, domestic violence victims forced to choose between contacting the police and keeping their home, and people with disabilities cast into the street when their well-intentioned neighbors call for a wellness check. All the while, the municipality acts under the relaxed standards of civil litigation, as opposed to criminal prosecution.
This essay explores how CNOs harm marginalized groups and how local communities can limit that harm. Part I explains how CNOs typically operate and where they come from. Part II illustrates how CNOs detrimentally impact communities of color, domestic violence victims, and people with physical or mental disabilities and illnesses. Finally, Part III examines how legal challenges and political reform can mitigate the harms of CNOs. This essay intervenes in the scholarly discussion by arguing that state constitutional amendments — an undervalued instrument of reform — can limit local power and strengthen individual rights. To that end, it proposes model language for these amendments.
Recommended.