Spring Break
Nuisance ordinance approved by city
Tyler Lamb
Issue date: 5/13/09 Section: News
The Whitewater Common Council approved two Chronic Nuisance Ordinances May 4, allowing fines on landlords and tenants with city code and law violations.
City of Whitewater Attorney Wallace McDonell said the original ordinance allowed action against residential properties with six more more police or property code violations. The council approved splitting the original ordinance into two separate ones.
The first section, alternative B, revolves around police action with residents and property owners that fail to correct problems with the property after four warnings, such as underage drinking or noise violations. The second section, alternative C, deals with properties remaining unkempt and allows fines after three violations.
Former Councilman Jim Allen first proposed a nuisance ordinance at the April 8 meeting due to a constant outcry from residents to increase enforcement, he said.
"Fines aren't doing the trick, Whitewater used to be a community where you drive in and it was very clean and very pristine … we're starting to lose some of that," he said.
Fines for violations of the Chronic Nuisance Ordinances range from $100 to $1,000 for the first offense, and $200 and $2,000 for the second.
"I propose a certain level in the ordinance, which sets the bond amounts, then the council discusses it and makes a policy decision as to how much the fine amounts would be," Wallace said.
In the April 1 edition of the Royal Purple Council President Patrick Singer said he felt the chronic nuisance ordinance did not fit Whitewater.
"I don't think it will fit the city... it's setup for crime," Singer said. "It's for drug houses or houses that don't repute... not for people not cutting their grass."
Janesville adopted a similar ordinance limited to police violations and acted as a model for the original ordinance.
The Historic Starin Park Neighborhood Association met with several local landlords prior to Tuesday's meeting, to work towards augmenting the city, vice president of the association James Hartwick said.
"I do think we feel we can work together... we are going to attempt to do so," Hartwick said. "To try to work together to enhance the quality of this ordinance, and furthermore to enhance the quality of our community."
City of Whitewater Attorney Wallace McDonell said the original ordinance allowed action against residential properties with six more more police or property code violations. The council approved splitting the original ordinance into two separate ones.
The first section, alternative B, revolves around police action with residents and property owners that fail to correct problems with the property after four warnings, such as underage drinking or noise violations. The second section, alternative C, deals with properties remaining unkempt and allows fines after three violations.
Former Councilman Jim Allen first proposed a nuisance ordinance at the April 8 meeting due to a constant outcry from residents to increase enforcement, he said.
"Fines aren't doing the trick, Whitewater used to be a community where you drive in and it was very clean and very pristine … we're starting to lose some of that," he said.
Fines for violations of the Chronic Nuisance Ordinances range from $100 to $1,000 for the first offense, and $200 and $2,000 for the second.
"I propose a certain level in the ordinance, which sets the bond amounts, then the council discusses it and makes a policy decision as to how much the fine amounts would be," Wallace said.
In the April 1 edition of the Royal Purple Council President Patrick Singer said he felt the chronic nuisance ordinance did not fit Whitewater.
"I don't think it will fit the city... it's setup for crime," Singer said. "It's for drug houses or houses that don't repute... not for people not cutting their grass."
Janesville adopted a similar ordinance limited to police violations and acted as a model for the original ordinance.
The Historic Starin Park Neighborhood Association met with several local landlords prior to Tuesday's meeting, to work towards augmenting the city, vice president of the association James Hartwick said.
"I do think we feel we can work together... we are going to attempt to do so," Hartwick said. "To try to work together to enhance the quality of this ordinance, and furthermore to enhance the quality of our community."
Be the first to comment on this story