A proposed ordinance that aims to hold business owners and landowners responsible for nuisance-causing conditions on their property has been returned to city staff for more work.
Several business owners, property owners and residents spoke to the city council at a meeting this month to ask that the Chronic Nuisance Ordinance not be approved without further work.
According to the city, the ordinance stems from an increasing number of disturbances in Vancouver’s entertainment district, such as disorderly conduct, reckless endangerment and assaults from intoxicated citizens. In some cases, according to police, landowners and business owners have engaged in or permitted conduct that has contributed to the problem.
The ordinance would give law enforcement a new tool to deal with the disturbances. As it is currently written, it would also apply to the entire city of Vancouver. For some, like resident Jerry Murray, there’s worry that the city won’t have enough resources to enforce it city-wide.
“Can you quarantine the areas where there is a problem?” Murray asked.
Ambiguity is another concern held by those who say the ordinance should be rewritten. Language that says the responsible person “knows or should have known” that there were issues raised red flags for several in attendance at the Oct. 13 meeting, including Dean Irvin, a Vancouver-based property management and investment professional.
“I believe that there are plenty of laws on the books already,” Irvin said. “The police department needs to step up and do what they need to do; they have all the tools already. Get the bad guy instead of putting it on the landlord.”
Business owner and lifelong Vancouver resident AJ Gomez agreed. He said the way the proposed ordinance is written it comes down hardest on property owners.
“The ‘person responsible’ [should] be the operator/tenant, not the property owner,” said Gomez. “If all other efforts are expended, then maybe [it can be] the property owner.”
According to Gomez, the ordinance “paints with too broad a brush” and should not be applied to every business in Vancouver.
“[Businesses] must be in charge of their own security and use police when appropriate. If you are going to have a party with 1,000 people, you need to plan for all of it,” Gomez noted.
As staff reworks the ordinance for another Vancouver City Council reading, Gomez said he would like to see the burden shifted from the property owner and placed on to the operator.
Jonathan Young, chief asst. city attorney for the city of Vancouver, said that the broad language in the ordinance was designed to “allow appropriate enforcement action to be taken regardless of the type of person or entity involved (i.e., landowner, landlord, business owner, or tenant).”
Improving behaviors
According to Lee Rafferty, executive director of Vancouver’s Downtown Association (VDA), the ordinance is intended to strengthen the partnerships among three groups – the Vancouver Police Department, property owners and business owners – and to raise expectations of behavior in the downtown area.
“The original intent was to help VPD by setting a framework for better behavior and communicate that we expect better,” Rafferty said. “We are pretty darn protective of our downtown area.
Discussion of the ordinance was born from Portland’s crackdown on its own entertainment district and the affect that entertainers coming to Vancouver (and their fans) were having on the businesses in the area, Rafferty explained.
“Vancouver Police put out extra patrols and had a stronger presence in the area when these acts came to town and that was the right move,” Rafferty said. “There seemed to be a negative stressor. Our neighboring businesses were suffering.”
After seeing this happen for a few months, the VDA, Vancouver Police and owners of downtown-area bars, restaurants and property owners began holding monthly meetings to discuss the situation and see what they could do to improve things.
One of the priorities the group developed was to come up with a legal remedy born of community discussion, and that is the nuisance ordinance that has been sent back to the city’s staff members for more work.
This ordinance is similar to Portland’s Time, Place, Manner (TMP) ordinance, which is enforced over that city’s entertainment district (which is less than 10 blocks). There, it was set up as a short-term program, focusing on establishments that serve alcohol.
City staff will continue work on this ordinance. An open house forum is set for Nov. 18 at 3 p.m. in the Vancouver City Council Chambers, where all interested parties are invited to attend. Young said that the ordinance may return to the city council in a December workshop after city staff is sure they have met with all interested parties.
