Last Friday’s Coeur d’Alene Press (see: Homeless to be ousted from camp near Target) and today’s The Spokesman-Review (see: Upcoming property sale forces CdA homeless to go elsewhere) skewspapers are reporting that the homeless encampment which the City of Coeur d’Alene has allowed to exist for years on property owned by Spokane developer Douglass Properties will be dismantled and the trespassers evicted. Both skewspapers’ stories suggest that the City of Coeur d’Alene will be using city police and possibly other city services to carry out Douglass’s demand. Neither story mentions who will pay for it.
The question is, will the City demand that Douglass Properties reimburse the City for all its costs associated with the dismantling the encampment and evicting the trespassers? Or will the City of Coeur d’Alene simply and quietly pass along abatement costs to its residents?
Idaho Code allows municipalities to pass ordinances regarding nuisance abatement. The City of Coeur d’Alene has nuisance abatement ordinances in effect, and those ordinances allow the City to recover its abatement costs from any non-compliant property owner.
In light of the Press article quoting St. Vincent de Paul of North Idaho’s executive director Jeff Conroy’s saying, “… we’ve known they’ve been back there for nine years,” and, “We … totally understand the danger that can happen back there,” we wonder if in those nine years the mayors and council members of the City of Coeur d’Alene ever sought to declare Spokane developer Harlan Douglass’s property to be a nuisance?
It’s not as if the City didn’t know the encampment was there; the police and fire departments were well aware of it based on calls for services. There is little question that the encampment qualified to be declared a health and safety nuisance by the Coeur d’Alene City Council.
If our past and present mayors and council members had fulfilled their duties to the public, declaring Douglass’s property to be a nuisance would have allowed the City to order Douglass to abate the nuisance at his expense. If he refused, the City could bill him for the costs of abatement.
We hope its not too late for that.
The city is under no obligation to “dismantle” the encampment, but it would be a good idea, to help prevent the homeless from immediately coming back and making this a repeating event. The city cannot remove trespassers until the property owner declares them trespassers. It is my understanding that the city has tried to contact the property owners about this problem in the pass but never received a reply.
I have seen estimates of from 30 to 60 individuals living in that area, which raises the question of where does everyone think these people and they are people, will go when they are moved from this encampment because they will not just disappear. Maybe this is a problem Mrs.Souza can work on because this is a problem to big for anyone city to contend with.
Comment by Mike Teague — October 28, 2014 @ 1:00 pm
If Conroy is to be believed, then Douglass or his agent has contacted the City and apparently persuaded the City that he has the authority to trespass them and the City has the authority to enforce the trespass order.
If the City tried to contact Douglass in the past to try and remedy the situation but was unable to, then that’s all the more reason to have initiated formal legal action (nuisance abatement hearing), serve him with a notice of the hearing, and then conduct the hearing. The City has done that before with others. If he chose to not attend the hearing and contest the allegation of nuisance, the City could issue the abatement order, abate the nuisance, and bill him for the costs.
Insofar as where the people will go who are now being trespassed from private property, where they go and how they live is not the City, County, or State government’s problem unless those who are trespassed become a public health or safety problem or violate laws and ordinances. Helping them find places to live lawfully is being properly being handled by charitable organizations and individuals who want to help.
The focus of the post was to point out that because the City government has failed to enforce its nuisance ordinances (assuming they were properly and completely written and are enforceable and applicable), the residents of the City may be forced to absorb any costs associated with removing the trespassers from private property. Had the City government enforced its ordinances nine years ago or whenever the trespass action first met the “nuisance” criteria, the need for the present action might have been completely avoided. This City has a bad habit of selectively and preferentially enforcing its ordinances to benefit their cronies, and this time it may end up costing its citizens money that could rightly have been recovered from the developer.
Comment by Bill — October 28, 2014 @ 1:28 pm
Bill, I think you are correct. Everyone sat on their hands on this situation. The owner because he’s not here but now wants to sell it and the City because these people were out of sight and out of mind.
So, here we are.
Comment by Eric — October 29, 2014 @ 9:52 am
City of CDA as hired-gun for Developers against the homeless? Say it can’t be true. The Douglas family has a long history of political influence in Spokane and Spokane County regarding development and getting public officials to do their dirty work for free. The whole debacle over expanding the Urban Growth Area to the north of the City of Spokane that has led to numerous lawsuits attest to their tried and true tact to defer cost to the taxpayer.
It’s apparent to me they’re importing the practice to the Lake City. Unfortunately, the mustached city legal beagle doesn’t even bark when taken advantage from the local “in-crowd” so even if he wanted to, Gridley’s head is out of the game and he is out of his league. But then, that assumes his job is to protect the taxpayers of the City, which this most recent lapse tells me he has lost any motivation he may have once had.
Comment by Old Dog — October 29, 2014 @ 2:54 pm