Mount Pleasant DC Forum

[jack]

CMs Graham and Evans have introduced a so-called "Neighborhood and Victims Rights Amendment Act of 2009". A key provision has to do with "public nuisances", as follows, in part:

"Wherever there is reason to believe that a public nuisance exists, the United States Attorney for the District of Columbia, the Attorney General for the District of Columbia, or any community-based organization may file an action in the Superior Court of the District of Columbia against the person or persons who are committing the acts which constitute a public nuisance, to abate, enjoin, and prevent the nuisance."

Key is the allowing "any community-based organization" to bring such a suit.

Definition: "Community-based organization" means any group, whether unincorporated or incorporated, affiliated with or organized for the benefit of one or more communities or neighborhoods, of defined geographic boundaries, containing the public nuisance, or any group organized to benefit the quality of life in a residential area containing the public nuisance.

This is a license for anyone annoyed by people thought by them to be a "public nuisance" to initiate a court suit, which in turn may lead to an injunction against the "nuisance" behavior.

The definition of "public nuisance" is extremely broad:

"Public nuisance" shall have the same meaning as at common law and shall include anything that threatens the health, safety, quiet enjoyment of life or property, or security of any considerable number of reasonable persons in a defined geographic area.

Many people are concerned about how such a law might be abused by local groups of people with great sensitivity to the behavior of people of different cultures and lifestyles.

What do you think?

Attached is the full text of the "public nuisance" section of this bill, currently in committee at the District Council.

-- Jack

[ryanshepard]

I can see a number of potential problems with the bill - here are the ones that I cited in my email to the Council:

1. The definition of "community-based organizations" is vague, and opens the door for the DC courts to be used as a weapon in minor, extralegal disputes between neighbors. It may also assist vigilante groups in targeting vulnerable DC residents, including the homeless and day laborers (see p. 3, 17-20).

2. The burden of proof required to obtain a preliminary injunction or temporary restraining order is not high enough (see p. 5, 20-21). This threatens to clog the courts with frivolous lawsuits, and for them to be used as an instrument of harassment.

3. The definitions of "public space" and "public nuisance" will allow lawsuits to be filed over some legal activities (drinking alcohol, for instance) taking place in locations that are commonly considered to be - and should be treated as - private property (see p. 4, 1-16).

[jack]