January 17, 2008
The lending nuisance?
So, foreclosed homes are a blight upon your city, encouraging crime and arson, battering your already stressed community, and causing a further drop in limited tax revenues. What’s a poor city to do? In the case of Cleveland, the city has decided to sue a number of large investment banks, asserting that their actions in securitizing “subprime” loans constituted a “public nuisance,” which is a tort that could lead to a huge financial damage award to the city. A nuisance is the use of land that causes a significant invasion of another’s use or enjoyment of their land, in a manner that is unreasonable under the circumstances. If the nuisance affects a public interest or public land, it can constitute a public nuisance. The concept of nuisance is notoriously slippery, and has in the past been uses to stop land uses such as strip clubs and polluting factories. But is seems rather novel to use it against a bank. In fact, the city has not sued small Cleveland lenders, but rather those big out-of-town banks, such as Bank of America and Deutsche Bank, that securitized the loans. Here’s a skeptical and insightful column from yesterday’s Plain Dealer.
January 16, 2008
When there’s no home in Seattle …
The dilemma of homeless people living in public spaces is one of the most gut-wrenching in all of land use law. On one hand, the argument, “Where are the homeless supposed to live, if not in public parks?” has no easy answer, especially when shelters for the homeless are not built, are not run well, or are more dangerous than living on the street. On the other hand, a hard-headed argument that facilitating people living in public spaces simply encourages anti-social behavior has merit, and everyone knows that sleeping in the park is not a good long-term solution, from anyone’s perspective.
Seattle is experiencing one of the nation’s most vocal debates over homeless people in public places. With a mild (albeit wet) winter, Seattle, like most big west coast cities, holds more than its share of homeless people, as well as a vigorous homeless activist movement, and an affluent and public-spirited population. Two stories over the past week show two sides of the ongoing dilemma. First, an editorial in the Post-Intelligencer asserted that once-controversial city housing projects have been successful, and have saved the city money, in large part by decreasing the cost of public-funded health care for homeless people. Second, the city announced that, under a new plan, it would no longer clear homeless encampments without notice, but would only do so after giving homeless campers 48 hours notice. This change would seem more humane … and then again, it may encourage camps simply to move from spot to spot.
[Comments must be approved and thus take some time to appear online.]