|
Drug house abatement programs appear to be a potent and increasingly common community response to the drug problem. Abatement programs rely on civil court actions or the threat of such actions, which are based on municipal or state ordinances. These ordinances permit civil remedies against the owners of properties judged to be a public nuisance by virtue of drug dealing or other proscribed behaviors. Typically, a request to abate drug sales is made to a property owner, and he or she is allowed a certain time period to bring the property into compliance. If the owner fails to do so, a civil action follows. As a result, the court may fine a property owner, close the property, or order the property forfeited.
The American Bar Association, (ABA) is currently completing research on drug house abatement programs for the National Institute of Justice. The research includes a legal analysis of drug house abatement ordinances in each state, an assessment of drug house abatement programs in the nation's 50 largest cities, and an in-depth study of five select programs in Milwaukee, Houston, San Francisco, Toledo, and Alexandria, which includes surveys of residents and landlords in those cities.
This paper provides some preliminary findings from the ABA research. In the first section, we present a synopsis of the five case studies, which describes the origins and operations of these exemplary drug abatement programs. In the second section, we discuss the results of an impact study in the five cities, which was designed to explore residents' perceptions of drugs, crime, and disorder, and to examine their awareness and perceptions of the local drug abatement program. In the final section, we offer some caveats and precautionary notes on the use of drug abatement projects.
Alexandria, Virginia
To rid neighborhoods of drug sales in private-sector housing, the Commonwealth Attorney's office in Alexandria is using a long-standing nuisance statute originally designed to eliminate prostitution and massage parlors. This 1950 statute was revised in 1990 to add drug sales and use to the list of nuisance violations. The level of proof to move against the landlord is a preponderance of evidence rather than the more stringent "beyond a reasonable doubt" criminal standard needed to prosecute suspected drug dealers. There have been no constitutional challenges to the statute, which has rarely been used because the threat of using it almost always resolves the problem. If the prosecutor has sufficient criminal evidence to prosecute individuals selling drugs, they do so in addition to notifying the landlord about the drug dealing on his or her property.
The Commonwealth Attorney's efforts require the close coordination and cooperation of the police department to identify problem houses and to warn landlords to stop the drug dealing from their property. Following the execution of a search warrant, if the police find any amount of drugs, or drug residue or paraphernalia that suggests the manufacturing of drugs, they notify the Commonwealth Attorney's office, even in cases in which there was insufficient evidence to make an arrest.
The police target drug dealers rather than particular properties and their usual route to identify dealers is through informants and undercover buys. After the police notify the Commonwealth Attorney that drugs were found in a residence, the office sends a letter to the landlord (or the owner if it is owner-occupied) alerting them that drugs are being sold on the property. They are warned that they must take action to stop future drug sales. If they fail to do so, they are told that they may be prosecuted or that civil action may be taken to confiscate their property. The letter is hand delivered by the police officer responsible for the abatement action.
The letter from the Commonwealth Attorney does not offer very specific guidance regarding the action the landlord should take, but the police department works closely with the landlord and usually discusses alternative interventions and strategies. If the person identified in the letter as a drug dealer is a tenant, the most likely advice is to evict. According to the police and the Commonwealth Attorney's office, most "honest" landlords are very cooperative and appreciate the warning letter, as the responsibility for evicting the dealer is shared with the city. This re- moves some of the fear landlords often experience in attempting themselves to evict drug dealers.
Once the letter is delivered to the landlord, it is the responsibility of the police to monitor the situation to determine if he or she has taken appropriate action and to ascertain whether drug dealing has ceased. The Attorney's office will not take further action unless the police alert them that dealing is continuing in the house. If another arrest is made in the house — or the police learn of subsequent drug dealing from informants or through surveillance — they will report the case to the Attorney's office.
Since 1989, 150 letters have been sent to landlords and only two cases have been reported to the Attorney for action beyond the initial letter. In one case, the federal authorities seized the property and the owner was jailed for 10 days; the other case was pending at the time of our site visit. According to Jennifer Pollard, the Assistant Commonwealth Attorney in charge of the program, simply sending the letters almost always results in a cessation of the drug activity. She further contends that they are not just moving dealers to another house to set up shop; she believes they are truly putting some dealers out of business, at least in Alexandria. In her opinion (which is shared by the law enforcement officials we spoke with), they have been very successful in eliminating dealers from private-sector housing.
Milwaukee, Wisconsin
Milwaukee's drug abatement effort is a well-organized, well-financed, and aggressive effort to eliminate drug dealing from problem locations. In the program's 18-month history, more than 450 properties have been targeted by the city's Drug Abatement Team — an interagency task force consisting of police, City Attorney's office staff, building inspectors, and community organization members. To date, nearly nine out of 10 property owners, who have been notified by the Team about the existence of a nuisance, have abated the problem without the need for the city to file a civil suit.
The program was born out of the efforts of State Representative Gwendolynne Moore and the Lisbon Avenue Neighborhood Development project (LAND), an umbrella organization of churches, community groups, and business interests on Milwaukee's west side. Ms. Moore and LAND members were concerned about the proliferation of drugs and violent crime. They convinced a number of Milwaukee landlords to attend state legislature hearings addressing these concerns. The property owners testified that they were opposed to drug activity in their buildings, but that current laws did not give them a sufficient basis for evicting tenants involved in selling narcotics. The governor was persuaded that new legislation and enforcement funds were needed, and these were provided in Assembly Bill 923.113 (Drug House a Public Nuisance: action for abatement) jointly sponsored by Representative Moore and State Senator Gary George. The legislature provided $500,000 for the establishment ofa pilot drugabatement program on Milwaukee's west side, and on July 1, 1990 the Drug Abatement Team was formed.
The new law is an updated version of an older bawdyhouse law that allows the city to file a civil suit to have a property declared a public nuisance. If the Circuit Court finds that a property is being used to facilitate the delivery or manufacture of drugs, it may issue injunctive relief. An order to close and, eventually, an order to sell can be imposed with the owner receiving nothing from the sale. Revenues generated from the sale can be used to recoup the expenses of the Drug Abatement Team and to recompense the mortgageholder. Any surplus monies go to law enforcement agencies, to drug and alcohol treatment programs, and to programs for housing rehabilitation and crime control efforts. Property owners can submit a petition to the court to stop the process. If the court does close a property, the structure must remain closed until any building code violations are cleared.
Houston, Texas
One of the city's most potent weapons in the fight against drugs is its drug house abatement program, a cooperative venture between the offices of the Houston City Attorney and the Harris County Attorney. The program's actions are based on an old bawdyhouse ordinance (Chapter 125 of Texas Civil Practice), which permits closure of properties defined as public nuisances. The statute was updated in 1987 to include narcotics in the scope of what is defined as a nuisance. The program's history dates back 10 years, when the Harris County Attorney began using Chapter 125 to get rid of sexually-oriented businesses, which the current program still targets. However, its primary focus are residential rental properties, especially motels and other SRO units. Of 24 case files examined on-site, 10 of the targeted properties were motels, four were large apartment buildings (over 20 units), one was a single family home, and nine were bars, convenience stores, and other commercial properties.
Actually, the term "program" is not quite appropriate to describe this collaborative venture because it operates without a formal budget or structure. The activities of the Task Force are a part of the County Attorney Office's environmental division. The division chief, Rock Owens, devotes a portion ofhis time to drug house abatement. On the City Attorney side, Donna Edmunson, an assistant city attorney, dedicates all of her time to drug house abatement. The two have worked together on abatement efforts for the past three years.
The team reviews for potential action about 10 problem sites each month. Most of the team's workload comes from either the vice or tactical units of the Houston Police Department. Some cases are brought to their attention by churches or civic clubs such as the Neartown Association or the Garden Village Civic Association. According to Assistant City Attorney Edmunson, Houston has few civic organizations devoted specifically to anti-crime activities.
By the time the abatement team receives a case from the police, the police have already made attempts to abate the drug activity through oral and written notice to the property owner. When the team receives a referral, it requests from the police a list of calls for service at the location. Particular attention is paid to whether multiple arrests had been made and drug paraphernalia recovered. Priority is given to locations near churches, day care centers, and schools.
If the team believes action is warranted, they have a number of options. If the building is vacant, the case may be referred to the city's neighborhood protection unit, which razes buildings that are deemed structurally unsafe. According to Assistant City Attorney Edmunson, the abatement team has referred numerous properties to the dangerous buildings unit.
A second option the team has is to refer a case to the County Attorney's Office for a forfeiture action. This option can only be used sparingly: To warrant a forfeiture action, a substantial amount of money and narcotics must be seized at a property, and the owner must participate in, or be aware of, the illegal activity.
Furthermore, the property must have substantial value with a minimal lien. Only two such cases have been referred for forfeiture actions.
The final option available is to file a civil suit in District Court seeking injunctive relief. This has been done to date in about 50 cases. The governmenthas the option of first seeking a Temporary Restraining Order (TRO) ex parte. Because the TRO is only viable for 14 days, the abatement team has opted instead to notify owners and apply for a temporary injunction, which takes about 90-120 days from the time a suit is filed. When a temporary injunction is obtained, owners are given a chance to settle by posting bond (in the minimum amount of $5,000 cash) and agreeing to a permanent injunction. The statute does not provide for return of the bond, although the practice is to return it after one year has passed with the property remaining free of illegal activity. If there are continuing violations at the location, the owner may be held in contempt of court, the bond forfeited, the owner fined or jailed, and the location closed for one year. In addition, plea agreements may involve eviction of problem tenants, structural changes to the property, or approval of new tenants by the city and county. Owners may also be asked to allow undercover officers on their premises to conduct reverse-sting operations.
In five cases to date, owners have chosen not to post bond and to continue litigation. In these cases, the parties are served and a hearing date is set to consider the issuance of a permanent injunction. The city and county prevailed in all five of the actions, and the properties were closed by the court for one year. Most of these have burned, been torn down by the city's dangerous building unit, or remained vacant. (Owners cannot attempt to sell them because the injunctions are attached to the property and run with the land.) So far, the abatement law has not been challenged by appeal.
San Francisco, California
The District Attorney's Narcotics Civil Abatement Program began in 1989 in cooperation with the San Francisco Police Department's Narcotic Division and local civic groups. An Assistant District Attorney, Hugh Donohoe, is in charge of the program. His position is supported through a state grant made possible by federal drug block money. The goal of the program is to identify nuisance properties and to prosecute owners under the Narcotic Abatement Act, Health and Safety Code 11570 et seq. The program generally targets high-profile residences identified by the police and neighborhood residents as large-scale drug houses.
Health and Safety Code 11570 is modelled after a 1913 law invoked primarily to shut down houses of prostitution in red light districts. It was amended in 1972 to include the use, sale, or manufacture of drugs to the list of nuisance violations, and it was amended again in 1986, 1987, and 1988 to add more teeth to its enforcement provisions. The Code contains civil remedies (restraining orders, temporary and permanent injunctions, economic sanctions) and forfeiture for public nuisances at properties where drugs are sold, manufactured, or used. The District Attorney's Office invokes the Code along with criminal prosecution and civil forfeiture for targeted drug houses.
A pattern of drug arrests on the premises is the usual route to proving knowledge of drug use or sales on the property. Community groups often help the police identify "problem" houses and provide a strong link in the city's overall efforts to eradicate drug houses. In invoking the Code, the District Attorney, or the City Attorney, may undertake several progressive, punitive steps to insure that drug activity ceases: (1) filing a law suit; (2) seeking a temporary injunctive relief and closure; and (3) seeking a permanent abatement order to close the property and collect damages.
Should a final abatement order be requested by the District Attorney and granted by the court, several actions may result, including closure of the building and assessment of damages. Punishment for violating the order is also specified. If the property is closed, all fixtures in the building will be sold and the building closed for up to one year unless a vacant building is deemed more harmful to the community than an occupied building. In that case, the court may order the owner to pay the city one year's fair-market rental value of the building. Damages up to $25,000 may also be assessed at the final abatement order. In addition, a forfeiture action may be initiated in which the city seizes the building and sells it. This type of forfeiture would be pressed under state law and, ifgranted, local law enforcement would receive 80 percent of the profits, the District Attorney 13 percent, and the remainder would go to the state.
If any of the abatement orders are violated, a contempt order may be filed with fines ranging from $500 to $10,000 and/or a jail sentence of up to six months. However, the building may be returned to the owner if he or she follows the conditions of the abatement order, pays all costs and fees associated with the lien, and posts a bond for the full value of the property for a year.
The District Attorney had (as of the date of our site visit) taken only two cases all the way through to the abatement stage. Three other cases had just been filed and 10 others were still in the investigative stage. Of the two cases in which the full extent of the civil statute had been pressed, one settled with the city by voluntarily forfeiting the house, and the other was still contesting the action.
Toledo, Ohio
In the spring of 1988, the Lucas County Prosecutor's Office in Toledo began to hold landlords responsible for drug-related activities on their properties. The effort was prompted by an increase in citizen complaints about drug dealing from neighborhood homes. By Ohio statute, when felony violations of controlled substances laws occur on a premises, it may be deemed a nuisance subject to abatement. O.R.C. 3719.10. If a nuisance is found to exist, the prosecuting attorney may bring an action in equity asking the court to order the premises closed and padlocked for up to a year. O.R.C. 3767.03 et seq.
The Toledo Police Department's Vice-Metro Section targets drug houses for potential closure. According to the captain of that section, approximately 80 percent of the drug houses that have been shut down (or padlocked) have been brought to the section's attention through citizen complaints. These may be from neighbors, Crime Stoppers, or community groups such as neighborhood block watches, "Crack Down Inc.," or the East Toledo Community Group. Approximately 20 percent of the drug houses were shut down on the basis of information from criminal informants.
Evidence of both "recent" and "continuing" illegal activity is necessary for a padlock order. Accordingly, Vice-Metro undercover officers conduct surveillance of alleged drug houses and, where warranted, make undercover "buys." A search warrant is then sought and, once obtained, a raid conducted. Whether an arrest is made depends on the level of evidence.
When there is subsequent felony drug activity on the premises, the prosecutor's office requests the court to issue a padlock order. The police do not have the personpower to conduct follow-up surveillance to determine if such activity occurs. However, further citizen (or informant) complaints usually trigger another undercover "buy," which will provide the recent and continuing evidence necessary to request a padlock order.
Because landlords are "strictly liable" for activity that takes place on their property, their lack of knowledge or involvement in the alleged drug activity is irrelevant to the prosecutor's request for a court order closing the house. However, if the owner can satisfy the court that he or she was unaware of the illegal activity and is willing to make a good faith effort to abate such activity in the immediate future, the court may allow the owner to post bond to reopen the premises. This practice, which was originally the exception, has become the rule as a result of pressure by organized property owners. The bond is typically 10 percent of the value of the property, although the court often "withholds qualifications for bond," whereby the property itself is used as bond. Should further violations occur, the injunction may be reinstated, the house immediately padlocked and ultimately forfeited.
Absent complaints from neighbors, police do little follow-up to determine whether a house that has been padlocked remains free of drug-related activity. (Police knew of at least one padlocked house that had been broken into and used as a place for "doing" drugs.) Likewise, no effort is made to track individuals who occupied the premises at the time it was closed. Most of these dealers are considered relatively "small-time," and are presumed to have initiated drug activity elsewhere in Toledo.
The Impact of Drug Abatement Programs
As part of the ABA's efforts to study the effects of nuisance abatement programs on crime, drugs, and other signs of social and physical disorder, we examined the perceptions of residents living near the targets of abatement activities. In each of the five cities included in our investigation, we identified from official records five properties that had been the focus of abatement actions within the past six months. We drew lists of residents living nearby these properties from Coles (reverse) telephone directories. At each abatement site, we selected residents in buildings on the same block (both sides of the street) as the targeted property. We attempted to contact these residents by telephone. We stopped our contact attempts when we reached the goal of 12 completed interviews at each of the five property sites in each of the five cities. If we had fewer than 12 interviews, we continued sampling from the adjacent blocks on the same street. Sampling proceeded by moving further away from the targeted property, until twelve interviews were completed. For 23 of the 25 targeted sites, all interviewed residents were within three blocks of the targeted sites. For the other two sites, residents were sampled from as far away as four blocks and seven blocks.
Table 1 displays our interview completion rate. Approximately half (53 percent) of the units sampled did not produce a completed interview because the unit was ineligible (i.e., it was a business rather than a residence, the number reached was outside of the target neighborhood, or the respondent had lived in the neighborhood less than two years) or contact could not be established (i.e., the phone was disconnected, there was no answer, no one at the number spoke English well enough to be interviewed, or no one was home over the age of 18). Of the remaining units sampled, 72 percent produced a completed interview. Interviews were conducted with the person answering the phone unless that person was not 18 years of age. In that case, we asked to speak to an adult member of the household. A potential respondent refused to be interviewed in 28 percent of the eligible units contacted.
We asked respondents if they were aware that drug dealing was going at the target location; if they were aware of the abatement efforts; whether they felt that the abatement effort was something that the city should have done; if the abatement effort had reduced crime, drug activity, and other signs of social disorder on the block; and whether the abatement effort had changed their feelings about the neighborhood and about residents' ability to fight drugs.
Perceptions of Crime, Drugs and Disorder
Table 2 compares the five cities on a number of indicators of neighborhood disorder. We asked respondents about four kinds of disorder in their neighborhoods: crime, drugs, drinking, and kids hanging out. Overall, drugs and crime were seen as the most prevalent neighborhood problems. More than 60 percent of the respondents believed that drugs (62 percent) and crimes (61 percent) were problems in their neighborhood. Drinking was seen as a neighborhood problem by 51 percent of respondents, and juveniles hanging out was seen as a problem by just 26 percent. In spite of drugs and crime, more than three-quarters (78 percent) of the residents in the five cities felt at least somewhat safe in their neighborhoods, and 83 percent said that they liked their neighborhood.
The five cities were substantially different on the disorder indicators. Milwaukee's residents rated their neighborhoods the highest on three of the four problems. This result was not surprising because the Milwaukee abatement team focused on one neighborhood that was believed to have the worst drug and crime problems in the city. The Milwaukee data suggested that residents of this area are very discouraged about life in their neighborhood. Toledo scored the lowest on all four measures of social disorder, while Alexandria residents rated their neighborhood highest in terms of safety and on how much they liked living there.
Perceptions of the Abatement Process
Exactly half of all the interviewed residents reported that they were aware of the abatement program's efforts at the targeted location. Most respondents (78 percent) who knew of the abatement action found out through their own observation or through conversations with neighbors; 11 percent found out through the media and 4 percent from the police. Awareness of abatement actions varied considerably by city. It was highest in Houston (76 percent) and Toledo (63 percent) where abatement actions frequently involved visible property closures (see Table 3). The Houston program apparently had excellent press coverage as well: 19 percent of all Houstonians surveyed learned of the action through the media — a figure several times higher than any other city in our sample. Awareness was lowest in Milwaukee (28 percent) and Alexandria (35 percent) where actions often involved just the sending of a letter to property owners.
About half (49 percent) of the residents surveyed believed that the city had made a correct decision in choosing the target property. Most of those not answering affirmatively simply did not know enough to state an opinion: only 4 percent of respondents believed that the city had targeted the wrong choice. "No opinion" answers were more common in Alexandria than in the other cities, perhaps because drug dealing was more covert there.
Support for drug abatement efforts was overwhelming in all the cities we studied. In four of the cities over 90 percent of respondents believed that the city's abatement actions were appropriate. In Alexandria, the proportion in favor of the program was somewhat lower, but even there 82 percent supported the actions.
Residents' Perceptions of Crime and Disorder
To assess the impact of the abatement programs, we asked respondents a series of questions about changes in crime and disorder since abatement action was taken on their block. We were surprised to find that many respondents reported such changes.
More than one-third of respondents (36 percent) told us that they believed that drug sales on their block had become less frequent since the abatement action. According to participants, other indicators of social disorder diminished as well: a quarter (28 percent) said that drinking on their block had declined. And about one in four respondents (28 percent) stated that kids hanging out on their block had become less of a problem since the abatement action.
Other positive changes accompanied the reductions in social disorder. One in four respondents (24 percent) said that crime in general had gone down. We asked residents if they also saw other important, favorable changes, and one-quarter (27 percent) responded affirmatively. The change mentioned most often was a greater police presence, suggesting that abatement targets were sometimes selected to coordinate with other police anti-drug actions (such as sweeps, buy and busts). Another favorable change mentioned with some frequency was residents banding together against crime. We do not know whether such community organizing was a serendipitous result of the abatement action or a precursor to the targeting of particular properties by the police and city attorney.
The effects of the abatement programs on residents' perceptions about their neighborhoods were mixed. One in five respondents (22 percent) thought that the neighborhood had become safer since the abatement action, but a nearly equal proportion (16 percent) felt that the neighborhood had become less safe. Similarly, 15 percent of respondents reported that they liked their neighborhood better since the abatement action, but the same percentage said that they liked their neighborhood less since the action. Data revealed that those who liked their neighborhoods less felt that way because the abatement action reminded them that their neighborhood was not safe. Most respondents who liked their neighborhood less also felt less safe in their neighborhood since the abatement action.
Finally, we asked respondents whether the abatement action had empowered them to fight drugs in their communities. A large majority (70 percent) answered affirmatively, suggesting that these programs may have favorable effects beyond short-term reductions in drugs and crime.
Table 4 presents data on program effects for each of the five cities. Although there are few significant differences between cities on the eight indicators described in Table 4, an overall pattern is apparent.
Houston's abatement actions resulted in the largest favorable changes in resident perceptions on six of the eight indicators of program impact. In contrast, Milwaukee's abatement actions resulted in the smallest favorable changes in resident perceptions on six of the eight indicators. These differences between Houston and Milwaukee residents' perceptions of program impact underscore a point made earlier: Houston residents were far more likely than Milwaukee residents to be aware of abatement actions on their block because they often involved highly visible closures of properties. Administrators of Milwaukee's program, on the other hand, seldom demanded such severe actions from property owners.
Summary of Impact Study
We found that abatement actions had considerable visibility in the communities where they occurred. Community awareness was highest in Houston and Toledo where properties are often visibly closed as a result of abatement actions. It was lowest in Milwaukee where abatement actions frequently consisted of just a private letter and a quiet eviction. The methods used by abatement programs clearly affect the level of community awareness.
Abatement actions enjoyed the strong support of residents in the sample neighborhoods. Across the five cities, 93 percent of the respondents believed that the specific abatement actions taken in their neighborhoods were appropriate. Abatement actions were also related to a number of favorable changes in residents' perceptions of their neighborhoods. One in three respondents believed that the action had reduced drug sales, while one in four believed that the action had reduced drinking and the number of kids hanging out. The abatement actions had mixed effects on how respondents felt about their neighborhoods: For some residents, the abatement action alerted them (for the first time) that there was a serious drug problem in the neighborhood.
Conclusion and Caveats
Although advocates view drug abatement laws as a constructive step forward in eradicating drug houses from neighborhoods, critics are concerned that such laws may violate due process rights. And, indeed, not all nuisance abatement laws have been upheld by the courts. For example, Trenton, N.J. passed a drug house ordinance in 1988. A test case resulted in the ordinance being struck down because it conflicted with state's rights for tenants facing eviction proceedings. Hence, there may be serious issues raised about the legality of drug abatement laws.
Questions of fairness may be leveled in instances where an entire family is evicted because of the actions of one person. For example, if one member of the household, such as the father, is convicted of drug dealing and placed on probation and his family remains intact, who in the household, if anyone, should be evicted — the father or his entire family? The issues become even more complicated when there has not been any criminal conviction, but strong evidence exists that an individual household member is dealing drugs. What standard of proof is sufficient to evict? Should one member — or the entire family — be evicted? Given the shortage oflow-cost rental housing, is the wholesale eviction of families likely to exacerbate homelessness and increase the pressures on shelters and service providers? How effective are the eviction proceedings and what is their total impact on communities?
Without question, officials in the five cities studied experienced some successes in eradicating drug activities from private properties. But the key question is: how permanent are these achievements? Little was known in any of the sites about the future drug activities of those evicted or displaced from targeted houses. Did they go out of business or simply move to another part of town and set up shop? We heard a lot of speculation that disrupting drug dealers by forcing them to new locations where buyers had to find them anew does, at a minimum, cut down on their trade and, at best, takes enough profit out of doing business to make them quit dealing altogether. Certainly, there is a logic to this line of thinking but documented research would help test whether it holds up in reality.
Little is also known about the long-term effects of the city's actions on the quality of the housing stock and the quality of life in the communities studieda. Residents reported some positive effects but the programs examined had been in existence for relatively short periods of time (abatement efforts nationally are recent phenomenon). There was evidence that the abatement efforts in all of the cities led to the abandonment of some properties. This appeared to be a greater problem in cities that usually proceeded directly to law suits (Houston and Toledo) than in cities that usually used warning letters (San Francisco, Milwaukee, and Alexandria). In the long run, the presence of abandoned properties does not bode well for the health of neighborhoods. A number of "honest" landlords told us the city's decision to hold them accountable for drug dealing on their premises has driven them out of the real estate market. Another result of drug house abatement that also does not bode well for the health of inner city neighborhoods.
Milwaukee was the only city in which there was a concerted attempt to revitalize the communities targeted for drug abatement activities. The efforts of the Drug Abatement Team are being supplemented by two major community redevelopment projects on the west side. Marquette University's Campus Circle Project has formulated a comprehensive plan to refurbish existing housing, construct new housing, create commercial ventures to fuel economic development, increase opportunities for jobs, and expand community services. The Milwaukee Neighborhood Partnership Inc. seeks to acquire, rehab, and manage 700 units of multifamily housing on the west side. Other communities may want to consider the Milwaukee example when crafting long-term plans for arresting urban decline.
Robert C. Davis, M.S., is the research director at the Metropolitan Assistance Corporation in New York City.
Barbara E. Smith, Ph.D., is a consultant at the American Bar Association in Washington, D.C.
Arthur J. Lurigio, Ph.D., is an associate professor at Loyola University, Water Tower Campus, 820N. Michigan Ave., Chicago, Ill. 60611.
|
