Tenant Law
Tenant Rights are Human Rights
Contributors
Bold Chicago Sheriff Refuses to Remove Tenants on Foreclosure EvictionsFriday, October 10, 2008
According to a press release Wednesday, October 8, 2008, the Sheriff of Cook County, Illinois (which includes Chicago and its closest suburbs) has decided to suspend foreclosure evictions in the wake of the growing mortgage crisis. Sheriff Thomas J. Dart made the decision to suspend the evictions as his department was on pace this year to conduct a record number of evictions, with evictions from mortgage foreclosures reaching unprecedented levels.
Sheriff Dart had become aware and uncomfortable about a trend we've been following for some time: the increasing evictions that involve innocent renters who have paid their rent and done nothing wrong. Often these tenants are not given notice of the foreclosure or eviction, and do not know that their landlord is behind on mortgage payments or that the property is being foreclosed, until they get the sheriff's notice telling them they have to move right away. As Sheriff Dart indicated in a press conference reported by the Associated Press: in too many cases a tenant has gone off to work one morning only to have the sheriff deputy come to the house while they are away, remove their belongings to the street corner, slap up a notice and bolt the door. By the time the tenant returns from work, most of their possessions are gone, and the tenant has nowhere to go.
"We will no longer be a party to something that's so unjust," said Dart at the news conference.
Sheriff Dart grounds his refusal on what he describes as a regular failure by the foreclosing banks to investigate the occupancy of the properties before requesting an eviction, as required. As stated in the press release:
As reported in the AP article, Dart said that banks will have to present his office with proof that the home's occupant is either the owner or has been properly notified of the foreclosure proceedings. The law already requires this, but the law has been routinely ignored with Mortgage companies often simply evicting the named owner, or sometimes amending their papers after filing to include the tenants, but not proffering service of the court papers to the tenants at that point or at any point.
Some attorneys have requested that Dart be held in contempt of court for refusing to carry out Orders of eviction on unnoticed and unsuspecting tenants. The Illinois Bankers Association even released a statement accusing Dart of 'vigilantism.' So far, no judge has issued any Order of contempt against the Sheriff.
According to the press release, foreclosures in Cook County have been going up since 1999 and the number of foreclosure evictions has almost tripled in just two years.
Sheriff Dart also submitted an Op-Ed about the suspension of foreclosure evictions to the Chicago Sun-Times. There are also reports on this story at the Chicago Tribune, CNN, and the New York Times.
We applaud Sheriff Dart's bold and principled leadership on this issue, and hope that awareness of the plight of these innocent renters caught in the foreclosure crisis will continue to grow, and that Chicago and other areas -- especially those with high populations of renters -- follow suit and move swiftly to enact common sense regulations and procedures to protect these renters.
BE ALERT CALIFORNIA!Wednesday, October 1, 2008
BE ALERT CALIFORNIA! Don’t allow slick public relations people and political handlers to sway your decisions. Demand that tough concerns be addressed. With election season in full swing and election day less than 6 weeks away, countless propositions are on the November ballot, and at first glance some look appealing. However, don’t forget to read the fine print.
Proposition 6 is one such initiative that deserves deeper thought and scrutiny. In a recent article in Beyond Chron, Dean Preston outlines the implications associated with California Proposition 6, which has been described as a "comprehensive anti-gang and crime reduction measure." On the surface, Proposition 6 seems to be a step in the right direction to help create safe neighborhoods by allocating $10 million annually to "Safe Neighborhoods Compliance Enforcement Fund." However, everything has strings attached, and here these strings are tight. With this allocation of dollars, comes the requirement that all state subsidy recipients, including both Public Housing and Section 8 tenants, undergo annual background checks. These would be on top of the strict background checks that recipients already undergo just to qualify for the subsidy programs. The proposed annual background checks would be not only invasive, but costly. Under Proposition 6, funding only partly comes from the new sources identified in the proposition, and the remainder would be paid by local housing authorities; the very agencies that are already incredibly under-funded and overworked.
Proposition 6 is not limited to subsidized renters, but it also impacts the private rental market. The measure would empower the government to evict any or all tenants in a building deemed to be a nuisance for gang related criminal activity. The problem is that the definition of such a nuisance, under Penal Code section 186.22a, as quoted in Beyond Chron, is "every building or place wherein or upon which criminal conduct by a gang member takes place." So if a single resident is called a gang-member by the government, then any criminal activity no matter how minor can lead to sweeping and mass evictions from the property. Currently, the government has no right or authority to pursue evictions in the private rental market, only landlords can do so. Proposition 6 changes that dynamic. Given our current failing housing market and culture of inequality, should we really be creating another avenue for displacement of low income renters? While Proposition 6 is intended to make communities -- particularly low-income communities – safer, it may put at risk the very people it aims to help.
The same can be said for Mayor Gavin Newsom’s recent attempts to create safer streets. In the San Francisco Bay Guardian, Amanda Witherell outlines Newsom’s San Francisco Streets and Neighborhoods workgroup and its recent meeting: "to analyze and understand the key issues impacting safety on our streets and formulate recommendations for needed improvement with the goal of creating a safe environment on our streets for everyone." The main concern of this street safety meeting according to Ms. Witherell was not violence specifically, but rather the homeless. From her analysis, the meeting missed the point entirely of safety – focusing instead tangentially on "drug dealing, aggressive panhandling, blocking the sidewalk, public urination and defecation, littering (and) intimidation."
Not that homelessness-related issues aren’t important when speaking of street safety, but the more serious safety issues facing San Francisco residents require immediate action. There has been a recent surge of murders in the Mission, with the San Francisco Chronicle noting that, "six people have been slain in the past two weeks." Fatalities in the Western Addition and Richmond districts, and vigils to raise awareness of the killings and violence, take up much of our prime time news hour. Yet, when task forces are convened, the heart of the issue is missed.
Seth Katzman of the Human Services Network aptly stated, "We have tenants and clients in the Tenderloin who are afraid to go out of their buildings at night because of drug-related violence. They’re not complaining to us about people peeing on the streets...No one likes it, but that’s not the big issue right now." However, rather than addressing these pertinent issues, Mayor Newsom’s meeting focused on enacting special enforcement and enhanced penalties for VIP sections of the city – the places where the ‘Very Important People’, eat, sleep, sight-see and shop (including Yerba Buena Center, Fisherman’s Wharf, Chinatown, and Union Square). Thankfully Jennifer Friedenbach, representing the Coalition on Homelessness, defended people who have nowhere to go with hard-hitting comments. It was reported that she was "sarcastically suggesting they have a registration for homeless people entering certain areas of the city," and that she later stated: "‘When you say sitting and lying on the sidewalk, that is targeting people who don’t have a place to sit.’"
Mayor Gavin Newsom’s agenda for this meeting demonstrated the desire, on the surface, to remove the eyesore and irritation of homelessness rather than addressing real safety issues and enacting progressive policy to create better enforcement in the neighborhoods of concern. Moreover, Proposition 6 seeks to clean up neighborhoods by merely kicking people out of their housing and by default, onto the streets. Both of these attempts at change miss the point entirely. We have violence, we have homeless people and we have a lack of affordable housing. We need to address the causes of each of these issues, rather than the effects, for the process to bring about any meaningful and effective change.
So consider these important issues when voting on Proposition 6; read the fine print on the ballot and demand that our elected officials address the real issues.
According to a press release Wednesday, October 8, 2008, the Sheriff of Cook County, Illinois (which includes Chicago and its closest suburbs) has decided to suspend foreclosure evictions in the wake of the growing mortgage crisis. Sheriff Thomas J. Dart made the decision to suspend the evictions as his department was on pace this year to conduct a record number of evictions, with evictions from mortgage foreclosures reaching unprecedented levels.
Sheriff Dart had become aware and uncomfortable about a trend we've been following for some time: the increasing evictions that involve innocent renters who have paid their rent and done nothing wrong. Often these tenants are not given notice of the foreclosure or eviction, and do not know that their landlord is behind on mortgage payments or that the property is being foreclosed, until they get the sheriff's notice telling them they have to move right away. As Sheriff Dart indicated in a press conference reported by the Associated Press: in too many cases a tenant has gone off to work one morning only to have the sheriff deputy come to the house while they are away, remove their belongings to the street corner, slap up a notice and bolt the door. By the time the tenant returns from work, most of their possessions are gone, and the tenant has nowhere to go.
"We will no longer be a party to something that's so unjust," said Dart at the news conference.
Sheriff Dart grounds his refusal on what he describes as a regular failure by the foreclosing banks to investigate the occupancy of the properties before requesting an eviction, as required. As stated in the press release:
“These mortgage companies only see pieces of paper, not people, and don’t care who’s in the building,” Dart said. “They simply want their money and don’t care who gets hurt along the way. On top of it all, they want taxpayers to fund their investigative work for them. We’re not going to do their jobs for them anymore. We’re just not going to evict innocent tenants. It stops today.”The Sheriff is holding out for the establishment of a legal safety net for these tenants, including: requirements that the mortgage companies provide additional information to the Sheriff's office regarding who is being evicted; and greater and earlier notification to tenants that their building is in foreclosure. Sheriff Dart argues that the mortgage companies and their attorneys should do more leg work in advance of an eviction, rather then have the sheriff deputies surprised to find themselves pushing an innocent renter from their home, and the renters surprised to find themselves suddenly without a home.
As reported in the AP article, Dart said that banks will have to present his office with proof that the home's occupant is either the owner or has been properly notified of the foreclosure proceedings. The law already requires this, but the law has been routinely ignored with Mortgage companies often simply evicting the named owner, or sometimes amending their papers after filing to include the tenants, but not proffering service of the court papers to the tenants at that point or at any point.
Some attorneys have requested that Dart be held in contempt of court for refusing to carry out Orders of eviction on unnoticed and unsuspecting tenants. The Illinois Bankers Association even released a statement accusing Dart of 'vigilantism.' So far, no judge has issued any Order of contempt against the Sheriff.
According to the press release, foreclosures in Cook County have been going up since 1999 and the number of foreclosure evictions has almost tripled in just two years.
“The people we’re interacting with are, many times, oblivious to the financial straits their landlord might be in,” Dart said. “They are the innocent victims here and they are the ones all of us must step up and find some way to protect.”"That number (of foreclosures, and related evictions) will continue to get bigger" said Sheriff Dart at the press conference. He reiterated the need for innocent renters to have adequate notice before being evicted.
"You are talking about a lot of people in rental situations living paycheck to paycheck," he said. "To think they are sitting on a pool of money for an up-front deposit, security deposit, is foolishness."As reported in the Chicago Sun Times, a community group in the Chicago neighborhood of Albany Park alerted Dart to this injustice when several members who were tenants in a neighborhood apartment building nearly were thrown out by deputies due to an outright scam. The owner of their property had filed condo-conversion parperwork, then took out substantial loans on each unit of the building allegedly for upgrade and renovation to the units pursuant to the conversion. Without doing any of the work, he took the money and escaped overseas. The bank moved to foreclose on each unit, and the deputies showed up to find the units occupied by paying tenants rather than the owner/scam-artist. The community group then went to Dart. Their investigation found similar scams were not uncommon in the Chicago markets.
Sheriff Dart also submitted an Op-Ed about the suspension of foreclosure evictions to the Chicago Sun-Times. There are also reports on this story at the Chicago Tribune, CNN, and the New York Times.
We applaud Sheriff Dart's bold and principled leadership on this issue, and hope that awareness of the plight of these innocent renters caught in the foreclosure crisis will continue to grow, and that Chicago and other areas -- especially those with high populations of renters -- follow suit and move swiftly to enact common sense regulations and procedures to protect these renters.
Proposition 6 is one such initiative that deserves deeper thought and scrutiny. In a recent article in Beyond Chron, Dean Preston outlines the implications associated with California Proposition 6, which has been described as a "comprehensive anti-gang and crime reduction measure." On the surface, Proposition 6 seems to be a step in the right direction to help create safe neighborhoods by allocating $10 million annually to "Safe Neighborhoods Compliance Enforcement Fund." However, everything has strings attached, and here these strings are tight. With this allocation of dollars, comes the requirement that all state subsidy recipients, including both Public Housing and Section 8 tenants, undergo annual background checks. These would be on top of the strict background checks that recipients already undergo just to qualify for the subsidy programs. The proposed annual background checks would be not only invasive, but costly. Under Proposition 6, funding only partly comes from the new sources identified in the proposition, and the remainder would be paid by local housing authorities; the very agencies that are already incredibly under-funded and overworked.
Proposition 6 is not limited to subsidized renters, but it also impacts the private rental market. The measure would empower the government to evict any or all tenants in a building deemed to be a nuisance for gang related criminal activity. The problem is that the definition of such a nuisance, under Penal Code section 186.22a, as quoted in Beyond Chron, is "every building or place wherein or upon which criminal conduct by a gang member takes place." So if a single resident is called a gang-member by the government, then any criminal activity no matter how minor can lead to sweeping and mass evictions from the property. Currently, the government has no right or authority to pursue evictions in the private rental market, only landlords can do so. Proposition 6 changes that dynamic. Given our current failing housing market and culture of inequality, should we really be creating another avenue for displacement of low income renters? While Proposition 6 is intended to make communities -- particularly low-income communities – safer, it may put at risk the very people it aims to help.
The same can be said for Mayor Gavin Newsom’s recent attempts to create safer streets. In the San Francisco Bay Guardian, Amanda Witherell outlines Newsom’s San Francisco Streets and Neighborhoods workgroup and its recent meeting: "to analyze and understand the key issues impacting safety on our streets and formulate recommendations for needed improvement with the goal of creating a safe environment on our streets for everyone." The main concern of this street safety meeting according to Ms. Witherell was not violence specifically, but rather the homeless. From her analysis, the meeting missed the point entirely of safety – focusing instead tangentially on "drug dealing, aggressive panhandling, blocking the sidewalk, public urination and defecation, littering (and) intimidation."
Not that homelessness-related issues aren’t important when speaking of street safety, but the more serious safety issues facing San Francisco residents require immediate action. There has been a recent surge of murders in the Mission, with the San Francisco Chronicle noting that, "six people have been slain in the past two weeks." Fatalities in the Western Addition and Richmond districts, and vigils to raise awareness of the killings and violence, take up much of our prime time news hour. Yet, when task forces are convened, the heart of the issue is missed.
Seth Katzman of the Human Services Network aptly stated, "We have tenants and clients in the Tenderloin who are afraid to go out of their buildings at night because of drug-related violence. They’re not complaining to us about people peeing on the streets...No one likes it, but that’s not the big issue right now." However, rather than addressing these pertinent issues, Mayor Newsom’s meeting focused on enacting special enforcement and enhanced penalties for VIP sections of the city – the places where the ‘Very Important People’, eat, sleep, sight-see and shop (including Yerba Buena Center, Fisherman’s Wharf, Chinatown, and Union Square). Thankfully Jennifer Friedenbach, representing the Coalition on Homelessness, defended people who have nowhere to go with hard-hitting comments. It was reported that she was "sarcastically suggesting they have a registration for homeless people entering certain areas of the city," and that she later stated: "‘When you say sitting and lying on the sidewalk, that is targeting people who don’t have a place to sit.’"
Mayor Gavin Newsom’s agenda for this meeting demonstrated the desire, on the surface, to remove the eyesore and irritation of homelessness rather than addressing real safety issues and enacting progressive policy to create better enforcement in the neighborhoods of concern. Moreover, Proposition 6 seeks to clean up neighborhoods by merely kicking people out of their housing and by default, onto the streets. Both of these attempts at change miss the point entirely. We have violence, we have homeless people and we have a lack of affordable housing. We need to address the causes of each of these issues, rather than the effects, for the process to bring about any meaningful and effective change.
So consider these important issues when voting on Proposition 6; read the fine print on the ballot and demand that our elected officials address the real issues.