Community Commentary -- Devan Mullins

I must object to your editorial (“City took the right steps in gang

ordinance,” March 7) favoring eviction of persons convicted of drug- or

gang-related crimes.

The editorial’s thin reasoning fails to prove the merit of the new

ordinance, ignores how unequally applied the measure is and how offensive

it is to justice. We can all agree that it is a useful goal in society to

prevent crimes. But security and freedom are always a balancing act and

society must weigh the costs and benefits of any new law.

The editorial says the police lieutenant said the ordinance will

“prevent and combat crime while holding landlords more accountable.” You

also claim, without any proof, that “the eviction will provide the

convicted’s fellow tenants a greater and much deserved peace of mind.”

While it may be true that eliminating gangs or drug users might reduce

the crimes this pool of people might commit, it fails to answer the

question of where these citizens go when they are booted out of their

residences.

Surely an evicted person ends up somewhere and if they are desperate

and now homeless, they may be inclined to commit more crimes in an

attempt to better their situation. Also disturbing is the notion that

landlords should be responsible for the acts of their tenants. A

landlord’s responsibility should be limited to the leased premises and be

defined by the contract between the landlord and tenant. Further

government interference is not required in this instance.

Likewise, the notion that the government is responsible for fellow

tenants’ peace of mind is an impossibly ambiguous goal and should not be

the subject of government intrusion. If the government really wanted to

give me peace of mind, they would put a million dollars into my checking

account.

It is truly stunning how the government wants to get their sticky

little hands in our lives. In most cases, they even have good motives.

While everyone complains that government should get off our backs, many

ignore the methods by which the government got on our backs in the first

place.

This measure pushes us further down a slippery slope, thoughtlessly

setting a new precedent with stunning implications. With this type of

law, the Costa Mesa City Council can engineer evicting anyone for any

offense, trivial or serious. If indeed a drug user or gang member should

be evicted, it follows that more serious crimes like murder, robbery,

rape and fraud should also merit eviction. But the law does not apply to

those crimes and does not apply to anyone fortunate enough to own their

home.

To find the real intent of this particular law, one need look no

further than the original proposal, which would have allowed eviction for

anyone merely arrested for a gang or drug-related crime. This dangerous

idea was nothing more than a transparent power grab, to be used

selectively against certain citizens, usually the poor and the

undesirable.

The revised ordinance only penalizes people actually convicted of a

crime. But here again, even if a person pays their debt to society after

a conviction, they still stand to lose their residence, but only if they

are not rich enough to purchase their own home. So a pot-smoking

homeowner (drug dealer/gang-member) is exempt while a person who commits

the identical offense -- but happens to be a renter -- is not. This is a

selective law and is a step in the wrong direction.

In applying our balancing test of freedom and security, we must ask

ourselves if we are going to be significantly safer with this ordinance

for the freedoms that are sacrificed. In this case, the answer is no.

This law is intrusive, treats renters and homeowners unequally and

should be rejected as just one more sticky government finger. If indeed

the Costa Mesa City Council wanted to help citizens, it should have

outlawed ownership of Enron stock.

DEVAN MULLINS

Newport Beach