READERS RESPOND -- What do you think of the proposed crime eviction
law?
Having lived in a neighborhood similar to the one the City Council is
trying to clean up, I have a great deal of empathy for them and their
attempt. However, on this one, Councilwoman Linda Dixon and Mayor Libby
Cowan are right.
The shocker is Deputy City Atty. Heather Iker, who seems to believe
that an unjustly evicted tenant would somehow get justice by going
through due process in the criminal case. What she omits is the
[subsequent] civil case against not only the landlord but also the city
of Costa Mesa as co-defendant for providing the legal justification for
an eviction that turned out to be unjustified.
If this law passes, Costa Mesa better get some deep pockets. But
before it passes, Iker should be required to retake Law 101.
HENRY OSTERMILLER
Costa Mesa
I am opposed to this proposed ordinance for several reasons.
First: Isn’t this a clear regression to the rule of Napoleonic Law,
which assumes guilt until innocence is proven? Or perhaps this is a
return of the Edwin Meese rule that a person would not have been arrested
if they weren’t guilty. My understanding is that the United States of
America rejected that idea and placed the burden of proof on the
prosecution rather than the defendant.
Second: This is a clear violation of property rights. If I wish to
rent my property to even a convicted felon, I have every right to do so.
I must also face the consequences of this unwise action, but I do not
believe that any governing body has the right to prevent it. As any
thinking person knows, governments may have the power to do so but that
is not the same as having the right to act in this manner. I do believe
that is one of the reasons we broke away from England in the first place.
Third: If we, as a community, start down this path where do we stop?
Perhaps it is also a good idea to require financial institutions to
foreclose on properties mortgaged to people accused of any kind of
felony, such as perjury? “We don’t want ‘those kind of people’ in our
town.” Yes, I think that makes just as much sense as this proposed
ordinance.
Fourth: It is obvious that the so-called war on drugs has merely been
an excuse to abrogate constitutionally guaranteed rights. Drug
manufacture and use has not diminished. However, the people’s rights to
expression, property and privacy have been trampled and the government
agencies from the national to the local level still don’t think they have
enough laws to control our lives.
Now is the time to “Just say no!” Say no to more government
interference in your life. Say no to this proposed ordinance now. Say yes
to liberty.
SAMUEL HORTON
Costa Mesa
The Costa Mesa City Council’s proposed drug eviction law is disturbing
and unwise. Not only does it attempt to flout our justice system’s
presumption of innocence by imposing a punishment on the occurrence of a
mere arrest, as many have pointed out already, it takes away the power of
landlords to decide for themselves when and why a tenant should be
evicted, instead placing that power in the hands of the Police
Department. These aspects of this law, while perhaps legally sound, are
nevertheless morally dubious.
But the council has seemingly failed to consider perhaps the most
grave result of this proposed law. A person evicted pursuant to this
ordinance, already a burden on the court system due to their arrest, will
immediately become an additional burden on the city of Costa Mesa.
Because they, along with their families, will be homeless.
MIKE ORLANDO
Costa Mesa
All the latest on Orange County from Orange County.
Get our free TimesOC newsletter.
You may occasionally receive promotional content from the Daily Pilot.