The way Dallas deals with harassment laws has been put to the test since the early 2000s.
Michael Förtsch at Unsplash
Last year, CMW Realty, the owner of three properties on Camp Wisdom Road, apparently did its best to help the police with their jobs after receiving tentative classification as common criminal property. But they were still being hit with posters saying their property was dangerous and fined over $ 3,000 as part of the city’s harassment program.
The city has applied its anti-harassment ordinance against 13 properties since it was passed in 2017, according to the Dallas Police Department. “That [habitual criminal property] Trial is another tool that enables us to tackle crime from a non-criminal strategy as we strive to prevent crime and create safer communities in Dallas, “DPD said in an email.
The main goals of this type of regulation are to involve owners and the population in crime reduction and to hold parties who tolerate habitual crime accountable. If you are given ordinary criminal property badge, it basically means that you have not helped DPD prevent crime on your property.
The city has already come under fire for enforcing harassment laws. In 2006, two Texas House and Senate investigative boards in Austin investigated the Dallas harassment laws and selective enforcement claims. In the committees’ final report, members repeatedly said that Dallas cannot hold business owners responsible for crimes if the neighborhood they are in is already riddled with it. It was the job of the city to cure crime in these areas, not that of the business owners. They also said the city used these laws to pressure companies to hire police officers off duty.
similar posts
I support
Local
Community
journalism
Support the independent voice of Dallas and help keep the future of the Dallas Observer free.
Keep the Dallas Observer Free.
However, much of the pressure is still on business owners due to the city’s anti-harassment regulation.
The anti-harassment process begins after five documented “preventable” criminal activity has occurred in a property within 12 months. At this point the property will be checked. The owner or his agent will be asked to meet with the Dallas City police and prosecutor to prove that they tried to reduce crime on their property prior to the provisional determination.
When landowners cannot demonstrate they took reasonable steps to stop the crime, they are given definitive designation as ordinary criminal property. But during this time, authorities are investigating more than just crime on the property. You want to make sure it sniffs in every other way too.
After the city opened a case with CMW Realty, it entered into a mitigation agreement with the property owner. As part of this agreement, the company installed temporary lighting, worked on bringing its buildings up to date, and inquired about DPD’s instructions on armed security. In an appeal hearing before the Appeals Committee for Permits and Licenses last December, Lisa D. Mares, the property owner’s attorney, estimated that the property owner had met approximately 95% of the requirements of the agreement.
However, after the owners missed a few deadlines and criminal offenses continued to occur at the site, DPD issued a definitive criminal property designation.
Mares said there were many moving parts of the deal, including contractors, obtaining permits and hiring armed guards to patrol the property and take up the slack from DPD.
Some members of the Appeal Board for Permits and Licenses said it was unfair to ask such a small facility to help make a high crime area safer. In their inquiries about hiring security to patrol the property, it told CMW Realty that the area was so dangerous that security companies would need at least two armed guards. The owner cannot afford that.
“Once you step on this treadmill, you cannot get off again.” – Gary Smith, attorney
tweet that CMW Realty is just the newest with that name.
Shashikan Patel owned the Royal Inn of Northwest Highway. In 2019, the city said there was too much crime going on at the hotel, enough to give it tentative classification as common criminal property. He said he would call the police all the time if a crime happened on his property, but the city said this was not enough. He had to be “proactive” instead of reactive.
“It’s kind of an inquisition,” said Gary Smith, Patel’s attorney, at an August 2019 hearing before the Permit and License Appeal Board. “If someone gets into this situation, they are basically not only at the mercy of the police, but the fire brigade and the health department and everyone else. As soon as you step on this treadmill, you can no longer get off. ”
Patel received multiple calls and did not respond to requests for comment.
The city ordered Patel to trim the trees and bushes around his property so police could see crimes as they drove by, install an automatic license plate reader, and hire a licensed armed security guard. Patel did everything but stop the guard duty. Patel didn’t want to hire a guard and risk getting into gunfights with people at the hotel. He would be held liable for any damage done by the guard.
A board member asked how DPD could expect Patel to employ a security guard to fight possible shootings on his property. A DPD official testified: “Another measure he can take is to hire off-duty cops to work his motel if he feels it is unsafe for a security guard.” Smith threw up his hands and the board member quickly assured him that this was not a recommendation.
When police came by for an inspection, they said they found drugs and evidence of drug sales such as scales and bags. Police also said an undercover officer was able to buy drugs several times at the motel. Patel asked why they wouldn’t just arrest the drug dealer. Police said this would jeopardize their undercover investigation.
Police also testified that two hotels near Patel’s had a fraction of the crimes he had. In the years leading up to the appointment, there were 20 arrests, 80 incident reports, and about 239 service calls. About half of the calls were from Patel. However, none of these hotels were gated or had armed security guards, which police said Patel would make his property safer.
Recently, the owners of the now-closed Jim’s Car Wash on Martin Luther King Jr. Boulevard brought a lawsuit against the city for enforcement of harassment laws and “retroactive overregulation aimed at getting them out of business under the guise of fighting crime,” submitted. ”
Robert had tried to shut down Jim’s for years and said the car wash was a public nuisance and a hotbed of crime. In June 2019, District Judge Eric Moyé ruled Jim’s had violated the Dallas Public Harassment Act and ordered the store to be closed.
[ad_1]
