On Feb. 7, 1997 the Sun had a story about five ordinances passed
in one night by the Bremerton City Council, ordinances designed to
clean up Bremerton neighborhoods.
One of those could be thrown out in the council meeting next
week.
An ordinance to help shut down houses harboring drug and other
criminal activity was praised by the public and council as it was
approved.
The new ordinance gives the police chief power to force tenants
out of a residence if they are convicted of three felonies or five
criminal acts in a year “if the convictions have an adverse impact
on the surrounding neighborhood.” The chief can also require that
the unit be vacant for one year.
Snyder Avenue resident Sharon Richards spoke in favor of the
ordinance, citing a seven-year struggle with drug and gang activity
in neighboring rental units. “Cars came and went all night long.
Shots were fired. We were afraid to sit in the living room,” she
said. The city was finally able to shut the unit down last year
because the building was unsafe. The new ordinance is viewed as a
tool for dealing with that type of situation.
“I don’t expect to use this often,” said Police Chief Paul Du
Fresne. “But we need to have the ordinance in our back pocket.”
The former chief’s comment that he didn’t expect to use the
ordinance often proved prophetic. Andy Oakley, the Bremerton Police
Department’s community resource specialist, said he doesn’t know
that it’s ever been used. The ordinance the council passed in 1997
is “virtually unenforceable from our experience,” he said.
The challenge is the problem property has to be home to someone
who was convicted of three felonies, something police generally
don’t discover in the course of investigating incidents. There are
some exceptions, such as driving offenses, that can be discovered
on the spot, but most times officers go to a specific property it’s
to investigate a single incident. The priors typically are
something the prosecutor worries about.
The new law, which the council will discuss in a study session
Wednesday, would focus more on the address of the incident. If
there have been three incidents in 60 days defined as nuisances,
the chief of police would notify the property owner, after which
the property owner and police could discuss solutions.
If the property owner doesn’t respond the chief could levy a
$1,000 fine. If after that there is no compliance, the case goes to
the city attorney, who could ask a superior court judge to declare
the propert a nuisance and fine $100 a day.
I wouldn’t be surprised to see some resistance from some
property owners, but Oakley said the second part of the overall
process, separate from this ordinance, is installation of software
that will send e-mails to property owners when there has been a
report written at one of their sites. Some property owners have
been asking for just such notification. The intent is to get
compliance before a property is labeled a nuisance.
After Wednesday the next step is for the ordinance to be on next
week’s agenda for council approval. That’s where more public input
is likely to surface.