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