The City Council will address the renewal of a controversial loitering ordinance put in place in an attempt to curb open-air drug sales, at a meeting today.
Instituted in the mid-90s, tonight’s vote is the third time the ordinance has come before the council. It passed by a narrow margin and now must be voted on again. Those who oppose the ordinance claim it to be racist and an infringement on constitutional rights.
“It is basically unconstitutional” Ald. Todd Jarrell, District 8, said. “The vast majority of people that are prosecuted under the loitering ordinance are African-American. The loitering ordinance has a profoundly disproportionate effect on citizens of color.”
Ald. Mike Verveer, District 4, said the police officers’ right to question loitering suspects does not benefit drug prevention efforts.
“It is just one more arm of the ineffective drug war that we’ve been waging for decades,” Jarrell said. “These approaches do not work.”
The police have sufficient resources to deal with drug trafficking, so the ordinance is not necessary, Verveer said.
“I think that the police have enough tools [to deal with these problems] at this point,” Verveer said.
Despite claims the ordinance is ineffective, supporters said it is necessary due to residents’ desires.
“I think it is needed because residents on the south side have asked police to help them control drug trafficking,” Ald. Santiago Rosas, District 17.
Despite claims of the unconstitutionality of the ordinance, Rosas said he regards his responsibility to constituents as a higher priority than the constitutional rights of drug-users.
“I don’t want our challenged neighborhoods to be discriminated against because someone says it’s a violation of constitutional rights,” Rosas said.
However, Jarrell said support of the ordinance may be due to a lack of options.
“In my heart, I believe they are asking for it because it is all we are offering them,” Jarrell said.
The meeting’s agenda also includes an ordinance that would require landlords to give written documentation as to their reasons for denying potential applicants.
Some city aldermen believe the landlord ordinance would help prevent discrimination, especially toward students. Madison’s “fair housing” laws include students as a group with African-Americans, homosexuals and other groups commonly discriminated against.
“This amendment would be a helpful addition to our fair housing laws,” Verveer said.
If the ordinance passes, landlords would be required to write short descriptions highlighting the specific reasons the tenants were refused a property.
“It’s just common sense that people should be notified why a landlord is refusing to rent to them,” Jarrell said.
This bill would help tenants understand if their denial is for legitimate reasons such as bad credit, or illegal reasons such as discrimination.
“It will help landlords who may be unconsciously and unknowingly breaking the city’s equal opportunities ordinance to realize they may be in violation of our municipal code, because they will have to come up with a legitimate reason for not renting to someone,” Jarrell said.
