An alert reader yesterday notified us that in a radio interview with Michael Lee Pope Delegate David Englin announced was planning to introduce legislation in the General Assembly to change how public housing authorities like ARHA handle their trespassing policies, making it much more onerous for them to ban criminals from their properties. You can listen to the brief broadcast by visiting this link for Windows Media Player (or this link for Real Player).
Note that ARHA Commissioner Carlyle Ring stated in the interview that many of those banned from public housing have been arrested or convicted of crimes including drug dealing and domestic violence.
Today we now have the text of Del. Englin's proposed bill.
Some readers have asked about the Del Ray legislator's concern about public housing. Apparently he has been cultivating this constituency for some time. His donor report for January 1, 2008 to December 31, 2009 states that one of the activities his campaign paid for were public housing cookouts and voter registration drives.
A 2005 press release from "Arlington/Alexandria for Democracy" which endorsed Mr. Englin states that "Many members were also genuinely moved by hearing how Englin and his wife Shayna had talked to many residents of local public housing projects who had never been approached by political campaigns."
Nothing wrong with that, but it could be that this bill is a formal payback for public housing votes. Whether it is viable in the General Assembly remains to be seen.
FWTW, Del. Englin posted a comment this morning (on the previous posting) stating that "The Housing Authority Barment Due Process Act would not prevent ARHA or the police from barring criminals from ARHA property. However, it would ensure due process before a person who has not committed a crime can be barred from visiting their children and parents who live in ARHA housing."
But in looking over the text of the bill, the Growler fails to see where any distinction is made about those who are barred for bad behavior and those who are barred owing to an arrest or conviction. It would appear that the latter are equally protected by this bureaucratic process and can buy time by initiating an appeal.
In the meantime, if readers wish to express their concern about this measure they should E-mail Del. Englin directly at DelDEnglin@house.virginia.gov.
A little later ...
The more the Growler gives this legislation thought, the more alarming it appears. Not the requirement for written policies that are prominently posted and distributed. But the provision that allows appeal to the housing authority chairman. It would appear this bill is designed to weaken the power of a reforming housing authority chief executive officer (in ARHA's case Roy Priest) and give the chairman ultimate veto power on barment, as the appeal is to the chairman or his/her designate -- not the full housing authority commission.
As a reader commented, this may have its origins in the recent scuffle between Roy Priest and Melvin Miller over someone who was barred from ARHA property. And it doesn't look encouraging.
26 comments:
"Nothing wrong with that, but it could be that this bill is a formal payback for public housing votes. Whether it is viable in the General Assembly remains to be seen."
I think thats one of the reliefs, that those uneducated and uncaring people, as our Mayopr profoundly called them back in November, in the General Assembly who may not live in Alexandria will probably not look too kindly on a bill that states that someone who received a citation for trespassing on private property has the right to appeal that decision to an unelected chairman of the housing authority who, coincidentally, has some friends who have received a trespassing citation.
I would be happy to write the new Governor to demand he veto this bill if it somehow can make it through the Assembly.
"But in looking over the text of the bill, the Growler fails to see where any distinction is made about those who are barred for bad behavior and those who are barred owing to an arrest or conviction. "
It reads that anyone who receives a citation for trespassing has the right to appeal that decision in a hearing to Roy Priest and then Melvin Miller.
Doesnt matter if they are a drug pusher, murderer, or just causing trouble by making loud noise. If they get a citation, they have the right to appeal.
It does read as if this really puts a bureaucratic strain on the police who write the citations. Whats the point of citing someone for trespassing if it could be overruled by Chairman Miller?
Mr. Englin -
We live here in this neighborhood. You do not. Nor does Mr. Miller. We live with the daily consequences these thugs bring to the neighborhood. And so do the residents of the ARHA properties, both Sec. 8 and otherwise.
Let me assure you, that NONE OF US (ARHA residents or neighbors) wants additional hurdles (due process or otherwise) to banning thugs from these properties. Please don't let Mr. Miller and his cronies tell you otherwise. I believe your intentions are honorable, but Mr. Miller has led you astray.
We (both ARHA residents and neighbors) have labored for over a decade to improve the safety of the projects and our neighborhood. This bill is a huge slap in the face to all of us. Please reconsider.
I believe your intentions are good, but please don't
Unbelievable!!! I have never heard anything more ridiculous.
Mr. Englin proposes to give additional protections to criminals and other trouble makers. Besides the idiocy of such an idea, sas he not considered the significant costs of establishing such a tribunal? For an agency which is already strapped? Seriously, the idea is so bad, it's hard to believe.
And how about this. Will those of us who WANT these criminals banned have a right to appeal as well?
"As a reader commented, this may have its origins in the recent scuffle between Roy Priest and Melvin Miller over someone who was barred from ARHA property. And it doesn't look encouraging."
I find this possibility highly troubling.
I cannot say enough good things about Mr. Priest. He is responsive, thoughtful, practical and effective. I do not think as highly of Mr. Miller, who has proven himself to be a very divisive and harmful figure in this neighborhood.
Would Mr. Englin care to comment on the origins of this legislation?
I wouldn't write to Englin I'd write letters of objection to the whole da-n legislature. This is one case when I would not mind a bunch of far-right Republicans calling Englin a brainless NoVA liberal. Englin is out to lunch, probably dining with Miller today, and he only drags the neighborhood further down. His and Miller's time worn shop worn rhetoric is class based and both men earlier proved their willingness to sell out Jefferson Houston school. As long as Miller can legally live where he does he doesn't give a flat a-s about the criminal going ons here. Does Englin also support the Houston Center's black only neighborhood advisory board? Hey Becker are you ready to write another local this surely takes the cake!
As a practical matter, this bill will make it impossible to bar people from trespassing on public housing property.
First, there is the administrative burden associated with requiring the authority's "chief executive officer" to hold an initial hearing, and then for the authority's "chairman" to preside over an appeal. These are busy people with a lot of important work to do (putting aside how well we think they are doing it with their existing demands). Imposing these additional commitments on them will discourage their staff from pursuing this remedy. Clearly, it is intended to do so.
Second, the bill requires proof of service on the individual in question at multiple points in the proceeding. In a real court case, only the initial pleading that starts the proceeding has burdensome service requirements. Many of these people have no fixed address. The authority won't be able to find them on a regular basis to deliver the necessary papers. Making the authority do it repeatedly at each stage will effectively kill many proceedings.
And then there's the requirement that the authority do it over again every three years.
Keep in mind that, under federal law, the public housing residents themselves are subject to a one-strike-you're-out-eviction policy if they or anyone in their household commits a drug or violent crime (again, putting aside how effectively we think ARHA and the local judges are enforcing that policy). This bill seems to give visitors who are not tenants more procedural rights than the tenants themselves have.
It will make public housing more dangerous for both residents and neighbors of public housing. It should be rejected.
I am so hot under the collar over this, I can barely see straight.
Mr. Englin, your proposed bill may be a simple act of political pandering. Unfortunately for you, it would also make the immensely challenging job of maintaining a reasonable level of civil behavior in OUR NEIGHBORHOOD even more difficult. And we're not going to stand for it.
Can't wait to see the reporting on this.
"First, there is the administrative burden associated with requiring the authority's "chief executive officer" to hold an initial hearing, and then for the authority's "chairman" to preside over an appeal."
Miller's a lawyer by trade retired apparently with time to spare. I can't believe the bill was introduced absent his approval. My question is was the bill introduced with full ARHA board approval.
What a poorly considered and drafted bill!! Will the "accused" be given counsel or representation? Will the hearings be public? Will the written opinions be available to the public?
And, most importantly, will the chairman be required to recuse himself in cases where he knows or is related to the banned person??
The whole bill is absurd. So obviously poorly considered. For example:
-If the no trespass policy is given to each tenant upon signing the lease, and if the policy is posted conspicuously, then WHY must the housing authority deliver a copy to each resident annually? How stupid and wasteful of time and resources.
-Must the individual be notified of his right to a hearing or just be given a citation? Must the hearing notice be written? How much advance notice is the trespassor entitled to? Does he have Subpoena power? Is the hearing on the record? Open to the public? What happens when the trespassor evades service? What are the conflict of interest rules? Is the hearing governed by rules of evidence? Sounds like the attorney full employment act to me. Rather than screw with this nonsense, the public housing people will just have to stop banning people. Unfortunate, since this is a very important tool for them.
The burden this is placing on housing authorities is staggering, particularly given that the only benefit I can see is to give thugs due process. And what right are we taking from them? The right to enter on private property after they've already caused a disturbance? Seriously, if they want to visit their grannies, they can meet at the Starbucks.
First, this bill has nothing to do with Roy Priest or Mel Miller. Whatever animus anyone does or does not have toward either of them, that has nothing to do with this legislation.
The origin of the legislation is rather simple: ARHA residents hosted a community meeting with the police, Roy Priest, the mayor, and myself where they aired a number of concerns about the current barment policy. During that meeting, and during subsequent meetings with residents, Mr. Priest, attorneys, and City non-profit leaders, a number of problems surfaced with the current policy, including the fact that an individual who has not committed a crime or even been alleged to have committed a crime can be barred from visiting the homes of their loved ones in perpetuity with no due process and no practical ability to appeal based solely on the discretion of a police officer. As I floated this issue to various groups involved with housing authorities around Virginia it became evident that this is a statewide problem, hence the state legislation.
Let me clarify several points:
- If a person is alleged to have committed a crime, he or she should be arrested, period. Nothing about the proposed legislation changes that.
- Current ARHA policy does provide an ability to appeal a barment to the ARHA CEO (Mr. Priest) but the policy has no practical effect because only ARHA management and the police know it exists. (In fact, until I scanned a hardcopy into a PDF to facilitating bill drafting, according to ARHA, no electronic copies of this 2004 policy existed!) Moreover, the No Trespass / Barment Notice an individual receives doesn't contain any information on how a person would appeal under the current policy. This has resulted in an untenable situation where people who feel they've been unfairly or arbitrarily barred believe they have no recourse.
- The key flaw in the current ARHA policy (aside from the fact that it has little utility, since nobody is aware of it) is that the only opportunity for due process is once a person has been barred.
- Creating a policy where first hearing rests with the ARHA CEO simply mirrors the current policy. Adding an additional level of appeal to the ARHA Chairman or another designated commissioner creates some oversight and accountability. Mirroring the current policy and making use of the current organizational structure seem like reasonable things to do, but I'm open to other suggestions.
- Aside from the constitutional issues, the police have a practical interest in ensuring that individuals have a right to due process because it makes their jobs more difficult and opens them to harassment allegations if residents perceive them as "judge, jury, and executioner."
If readers have specific, constructive suggestions for ways to improve the legislation, please email them to me at DelDEnglin@house.virginia.gov.
Sell before this takes effect and further makes our neighborhood less desireable.
David Englin (D. Thug). God forbid I might actually vote for a Republican next time.
It makes sense to have some sort of appeal process for individuals who have been barred from ARHA properties. Perhaps the appeal process could put the burden on the individual, and not ARHA. In other words, the appeal would only be started by defined action on the part of the barred individual. If the individual did not take any action, they would remain ineligible for entry onto ARHA property.
As written, the bill seems to place a heavy burden on ARHA. Shifting much or even all of that burden onto the barred individual would make it easier to maintain a safe environment in ARHA.
I sent a note elaborating on this to State Representative Englin. It would be helpful if others expressed their opinions through this more formal channel.
"First, this bill has nothing to do with Roy Priest or Mel Miller."
Mel Miller? Sounds like a chummy not arm's length relationship to me.
"My question is was the bill introduced with full ARHA board approval."
Good question which Englin has avoided answering.
?the police have a practical interest in ensuring that individuals have a right to due process because it makes their jobs more difficult and opens them to harassment allegations"
Chief Cook now sits on the ARHA Board correct so I too would like answer to the poster's above noted question.
"Mirroring the current policy and making use of the current organizational structure seem like reasonable things to do, but I'm open to other suggestions."
If ARHA could not de-mold Glebe Park in a timely manner and the Bland project is an example of ARHA's time management strategy and Jefferson Houston has deteriorated to yet another example of defacto segregation then time and fairness are guaranteed, how? It feels like the few are jerking the many and feel is your word Mr. Englin.
TRF - Thanks for your constructive comments via email.
"Current ARHA policy does provide an ability to appeal a barment to the ARHA CEO (Mr. Priest) but the policy has no practical effect because only ARHA management and the police know it exists."
Seriously? So post a freakin $2 sign. Don't spend thousands and thousands of taxpayer dollars to fashion a ridiculous hearing and appeal process so thugs can crash at their granny's house.
What's that sound?? It's me banging my head against a brick wall....
I have grave concerns about the final arbiter being "the chairman of the commissioners," to quote Mr. Englin's bill. In Alexandria, anyway, the Chairman is extremely controversial and of dubious impartiality when it comes to barred individuals.
If Mr. Englin must proceed with this bill, I'd feel better if the appellate tribunal was a board consisting of citizens from the neighborhood.
"Sell before this takes effect and further makes our neighborhood less desireable."
Seems to me unless you bought your house before the public housing was built, the price you paid for your house already captured or valued the effects of living near public housing. So, assuming you bought after the public housing was built (as is very likely), then whether the neighborhood was desirable (or not) when you bought, it is what it is.
It would be nice if Mr Englin were equally interested in the rest of us - the ones choking on all the taxes.
A registered Dem, I voted for a right-wing Republican for governer just to not suffer under further ignorant bleeding heart liberalism. Holding my nose all the way. As the song says, there are clowns to the left of me and jokers to the right - many of us are stuck in the middle.
I sold my home in PG after ten years of fighting Alexandria BS, and the proceeds will fund a chunk of my retirement elsewhere. Just reading what current residents are going through - still - got my blood boiling all over again.
A recently hired guy at work asked me today where he should move his family. I was shocked how fast I answered, and what I said: "Move to Arlington."
Growler, in addition to contacting Mr. Englin, should we email the City Council about this? Would that do any good?
Mr. Englin,
Way to fight for the rights of the least meritorious constituency of all time - the criminal element that causes trouble in (AND AROUND)public housing developments. Keep the comedy coming as my property taxes triple in 8 years.
How about spending more energy fixing Jefferson Houston so some low income kids in Alexandria don't have to assume they'll have an ARHA landlord for life? Ooops, can't. We'd be destroying a community.
"Growler, in addition to contacting Mr. Englin, should we email the City Council about this? Would that do any good?"
In the time it took to write this email another could have been sent to to officials. God forbid if Senator Ticer plans to support a companion bill. By all means tell Council this is not an appropriate part of the city's legislative package. My problem I can't believe Englin is acting in isolated fashion.
Mr. Englin said that there was a hearing process already in place, but the individuals being barred weren't aware of it.
Why not add that information to the current paperwork the police issue the individual and be done with it? What's the need for all these extra rules Sir?
SCSA
Mr. Englin said that his legislation is good because "the police have a practical interest in ensuring that individuals have a right to due process because it makes their jobs more difficult and opens them to harassment allegations if residents perceive them as "judge, jury, and executioner.""
Trust me, Mr. Englin, your bill will not make the police's job easier. And it certainly won't stop the thugs from screaming unfounded harassment allegations. This is not our first day in the neighborhood...
Post a Comment