Why the killer lives on West 98th Street
The murder of Detective Jonathan Schroeder in a raid on a West 98th St. apartment on Wednesday raises many questions, but here’s one that has an answer:
How did violent ex-convict Wilson Santiago happen to be living on West 98th, around the corner from the woman he allegedly robbed and raped Friday, leading to the raid during which he fired his .357 magnum through the door and killed Detective Schroeder? Why are people like Santiago infesting perfectly good Cleveland neighborhoods, turning them into places that are “rough, getting rougher”?
In Santiago’s case, the answer to this question is Joseph K. McGervey.
Mr. McGervey, who apparently lives in Westlake, is the absentee landlord who owns the three-family house where Santiago is a tenant. Mr. McGervey, along with his wife, owns at least ten other West Side rental properties — some purchased privately, some picked up from HUD or VA. His mother and father, also suburbanites, own another thirteen or so. Another McGervey named John, apparently related, has five or six. (This is all from the county auditor’s records, available on line.)
In other words, the McGervey family is seriously in the Cleveland apartment rental business.
Now my understanding from talking to people in the neighborhood is that Joseph McGervey is not a bad guy, as absentee landlords go. He shows up at community meetings. He gives his phone number to neighbors so they can report problems. He respond to complaints. And he’s probably feeling horrible today… especially because, as I understand it, he has a brother who’s a Cleveland police officer.
But none of that changes this fact: Mr. McGervey rented that apartment on West 98th to Mr. Santiago, a guy with “a 20-year criminal history”, who got out of prison in Ohio last year after serving two years for burglary and drug dealing, and previously served five years in a Florida prison for “burglary, grand theft, trafficking in stolen property, drug possession and resisting an officer with violence“. (My emphasis.)
Either Mr. McGervey didn’t get a criminal background check on Mr. Santiago before he allowed him to move into his property… or he did get a background check, found out all this history, then let him move in anyway.
Don’t tell me he had no choice. Private landlords rent their properties “at will.” There was nothing preventing Mr. McGervey from declining to accept Santiago’s money.
But he took it. And that’s why the police cars and yellow tape were all over the 2000 block of West 98th Street yesterday.
There are many things about crime and the criminal justice system that stump me as much, or more, than anyone else. But if there’s one thing that 25 years of living and working in near West Side neighborhoods has proven to me, it’s this: When a neighborhood turns into a Wild West Show — drugs, midnight noise, fights, street crime, gunfire, and the rest — the explanation inevitably leads back to the badly screened, badly managed tenants of absentee landlords. And they’re usually small and mid-sized suburban investors like the McGerveys.
This has been going on for a long, long time, and it’s probably the single biggest reason — even bigger than the schools — why families feel they have to flee the city. Uncontrolled, irresponsible absentee landlordism is a neighborhood-killer. Something about this situation has to change. Dramatically. Now.
Here’s my proposal: There ought to be a law that creates criminal and civil liability for property owners whose tenants use their premises for illegal activity — from disturbing the peace to discharging a firearm at a police officer — and who can’t show that they’ve made diligent efforts to prevent or remedy the situation. A law, in other words, that would put a Joseph McGervey at serious legal and financial risk when he rents an apartment to a Wilson Santiago. A law that says to landlords: From now on, if it happens on your property, it’s your problem.
Maybe we could call it “Detective Schroeder’s Law”. It would be a worthy legacy for a guy who died trying to save the people of one neighborhood from a violent criminal in their midst. It might even save the city.
September 1st, 2006 at 1:44 pm
Bill, you’d want to call it “A.J.’s Law”, because it sounds a lot better.
Wingnuts would hate it, of course. I can see the flecks of spittle forming on the corner of Jonathan’s mouth as I type.
The interesting thing about the idea is that the mail objection they’ll raise– that it would decrease investment in the city– would arguably be a good thing. When suburbanites buy up city properties as investments (usually in highly-leveraged transactions), it reduces the quality housing stock for residents who want to live there– thereby raising demand (and prices) of the remaining homes.
Get the absentees out of the picture and you have more inexpensive homes.
By the way, you forgot the part about applying commercial tax rates to homes purchased for rental, didn’t you?
September 1st, 2006 at 2:18 pm
Mr. Callahan, although I certainly was horrified by the murder of Detective Jonathan Schroeder, as the Executive Director of the Cleveland Tenants Organization, I must strongly object to your proposal that there ought to be a law that creates criminal and civil liability for property owners whose tenants use their premises for illegal activity.
Current landlord/tenant laws do mandate that a landlord evict a tenant when the landlord has information from a Law enforcement officer, based on a legal search, that the tenant, the tenant’s guest, or a member of the tenants’ household is involved in drug activity in connection with the premises. However, there are no laws that hold a landlord directly responsible for the acts of their tenants. There are numerous reasons why this is so. I believe that the social implications of such a law would devastate a poor city like Cleveland.
As you have written about, Cleveland is one of the poorest cities in America. Over half of Cleveland’s population is comprised of renters. These renters make up a great number of our neighbors, friends, family, and yes…murderers and other criminals. Holding Landlords responsible for the acts of their tenants will not solve the problem. It will however, force landlords to perform extensive background checks, credit checks, reference checks, etc…on their prospective tenants. This additional cost will of course be passed onto the renters of the property. Here in Cleveland, 45% of renters pay more than 30% of their income on rent, while 25% pay more than 50% of their income on rent. The Department of Housing and Urban Development asserts that a person should not pay more then 30% of their income on rent.
I ask you…How will increasing costs on an already overburdened population, by imposing liability on a landlord for a crime committed on his property, solve the problem? Mr. Callahan…the problem will not be solved merely by placing responsibility on the landlord…The problem will only be solved once Cleveland can address the social implications of being the “poorest city in America.” Social change is never easy…but it is an overdue necessity for our city.
We are responsive to the tenants of Cleveland, and it is not often that we defend landlords. However, your modest proposal would dramatically increase the homeless population and the number of vacant units in our neighborhoods.
September 1st, 2006 at 2:39 pm
Bill-
Sounds like a plan. I know that you and I both have sat through many, many neighborhood meetings where the problems on the streets are pointed back to absentee landlords and their disinterest in the neighborhood that they have invested. It has boggled my mind that they would intentionally buy property, neglect it, and be happy when people who are homeowners move out so that property values continue to erode. After all, an investment is supposed to appreciate, isn’t it? I have always wondered if some other dynamic is at work that I just can’t fathom.
At any rate, we should all pause and reflect at the huge personal risk that our safety forces embrace each and every day that they work to make us safe. And as a community we should offer our sympathy and give our thanks to Detective Schroeder and those like him.
September 1st, 2006 at 2:40 pm
Bill, I agree with what you’ve written. But my other hand, or head or heart as the case may be, is curious to know how, for example, we should treat residents in and owners of halfway houses. Do you have in mind safeguards that should be applied religiously to minimize the chance that a recidivist moves in versus someone who has erred and is trying to turn around their life. I think this is a real issue and we do indeed see entire communities resisting the creation or existence of such homes in their neighborhoods. God doesn’t expect us to put ourselves in harm’s way or invite harm into our lives or others. But what about the people who want to give others a shot? What suggestions are out there for how to keep from making bad tenant choices, even among the riskiest who still deserve a chance? Or, do you think, that some folks, under no circumstances, get that chance?
September 1st, 2006 at 4:01 pm
Mike,
First, I have to point out that the people most at risk from the landlord’s decision to let a violent character like Wilson Santiago live in that apartment were the tenants in the other two units. Renters in the West 98th neighborhood were just as endangered as homeowners. Do you actually think out-of-control criminal behavior enabled by irresponsible landlords is of less concern to neighbors who are low-income tenants than it is to neighbors with mortgages?
Second, in what world are landlords still routinely signing leases without getting credit and criminal background checks? Not in my neighborhood (Brooklyn Centre) or my old neighborhood (Stockyards). This is just a part of competent rental management, along with paying attention to who’s doing what on the premises, keeping up the maintenance and enforcing common-area rules (like, it’s not okay to stand around in the driveway with an open container, playing your car stereo so it can be heard three blocks away and cursing out the neighbors who object.) Do CTO members object to this quality of management in their own buildings? It’s been a major selling point for prospective renters in the handful of affordable units I’ve helped get developed.
Do you think the city should stop citing landlords for building and housing code violations because they might try to pass the cost of repairs on to tenants? Should we wait for “social change” to happen before we make landlords fix leaky roofs and dangerous wiring?
Jill, I’d apply the same principle to a transition home as to any other situation — the people who own it should take responsibility for what happens there. I don’t think you’d find many legitimate sponsors that would object to that.
September 1st, 2006 at 5:15 pm
Taking responsibility for what happens there and being able to predict what might happen when you’re taking in someone who has a record are not the same thing, Bill. Taking responsibility is far easier than predicting. Do the landlords get to be wrong, because they’re taking a risk no one else will or even just because no one can know for sure what another person might do?
September 1st, 2006 at 5:27 pm
Bill:
This is a very radical concept in the law to make a landlord responsible for the actions of another. The last Cleveland police officer was killed at a gas station. Should we extend this to businesses who repeatedly allow troubled people onto their property? What about those who re-enter the system “reformed” and ready to be a productive member of society? Should they be forever stigmatized with their criminal background? What happened to forgiveness? Where do we keep all the people screened out of apartment living if the Callahan rule were established? Do we create an island of problem tenants with massive dormitories and fenses to keep these guys from interacting with the rest of us?
Isn’t your complaint with absentee landlords? Why set up a new legal concept, which would make landlords terrified to rent to anyone. Afterall, John Allen Muhammad–the Beltway Sniper, did not have an extensive criminal background so that is not always the best judge of who is going to commit a crime. Why can’t we set up a structure to make sure that landlords are more responsible and obey the current law instead of creating unjust new laws? Who would ever take a chance on someone if they were criminally responsible for their tenants. That would be the end of the rental industry, leases and current protections for tenants. How about forcing landlords to be more active in the neighborhoods? The Callahan rule would create vast tracks of land with vacant housing because landlords would fear potential tenants. An abandoned house creates more crime than an occupied unit. At least there is a landlord to complain to about problem tenants in an occupied unit.
Brian
September 1st, 2006 at 6:21 pm
Jill, go back and re-read my proposal. I’m not proposing that a property owner has to be ominiscient — just diligent. If you prefer, we can reverse the burden of proof and limit liability to cases of negligence — of failure to take reasonable care to prevent or stop criminal behavior by tenants on the premises. This is a standard that applies to all kinds of business roles — think about product liability or accounting. Why not to a relationship between a property owner and the people he allows to use the property?
Brian, “radical” is not that scary a concept to me, but it only applies in this circumstance if you assume nobody should be legally responsible for anything if responsibility might drive them out of a market. I know you don’t believe that, so I’m kind of stunned by the “vast tracks of land” rhetoric.
A gas station owner who rents a piece of his station to someone who then proceeds to turn it into a chop shop is likely to have serious legal problems, especially if he’s told about it but turns a blind eye. And if the person who rents it is just out of prison for car theft, I think the station owner’s problems will be that much greater. But as Mike’s comment above makes clear, a landlord has no legal obligation to prevent or abate illegal activities by others (other than drugs) on his residential premises. It isn’t a matter of enforcing current laws — there aren’t any to enforce. And how in heck would you “force a landlord to be more active in his neighborhood”?
Look, if you and Mike think that “anything goes” is the only regime under which investors will buy houses and rent them to poor people with checkered pasts, then I think you have to conclude that a viable private low-income rental market cannot coexist with a city of safe, healthy neighborhoods. Maybe that’s right. I think we have to try to show that it’s wrong, if we want good economically diverse neighborhoods to thrive — and I think we have no chance of success if we let absentee landlords continue to avoid all serious consequences of their bad decisions. And I insist that renting to a guy of Santiago’s background, with no strings or supervision to protect the neighbors, was an outrageously bad decision.
You got any better ideas? I’m listening.
September 2nd, 2006 at 6:50 am
Bill-
This is an important issue. There are no simple answers, but that should not deter us from seeking solutions. When the pain of the death of Officer Schroeder (and the murder victims in the Detroit Shoreway area) have subsided, there will still be a need for THE COMMUNITY to martial some wisdom about finding ways to protect itself. It won’t be just deputizing landlords (or criminalizing their lack of diligence) and it shouldn’t be blacklisting all “former felons” but a combination of approaches that build on the good sense of all involved (including neighbors, police, community organizations, local churches and civic groups…as well as landlords) to make a safer community. None of these parties in wholly responsible for averting a tragecy…none is without a role in providing a safe community.
September 2nd, 2006 at 8:21 am
Before purchasing my house I leased two properties. Each time I was subjected to a full background check which was charged to me, I think it was part of what they called an application fee of $25.00
Also I had to put in a substantial security deposit which I must admit was refunded in full both times. My situation was a bit different since I was coming in from out of state not out of jail.
Mike claims that putting too much liability on absentee landlords would accelerate higher cost of living in poor neighborhoods I submit that absentee landlords often do not lease their properties at fair market price but ask more than what the property is worth and ask fewer questions about their renters.
What does the Mayor plan to do about this? Do we have to all go to City Hall to get some resolution? What does it take to move a mountain?
September 2nd, 2006 at 8:36 am
Shalom Bill,
I could not in good conscience support such a law because it runs counter to the core of our legal system, the golden thread that runs through it and that holds it all together: a citizen is innocent until proven guilty.
Until we as a nation are willing to reject all concepts of rehabilitation, we must accept that when a criminal has served their sentence, completed their parole, no one ought to be responsible for their behavior but themselves.
And yes, I reject the various sexual predators laws for the same reason. If we believe a criminal is not safe on our street, then shoulder the financial burden and keep them in prison, or take the ultimate step and execute them.
To try and have it both ways — to not be responsible for them and pay their upkeep in prison, yet keep them under some kind of pseudo-justice supervision — is a none solution.
I agree with Mike, such a law would only make it more expensive to live in the city and further privatize the criminal justice system.
Discrimination is discrimination. We reject the idea that race can be a factor in who a landlord may rent to. Why is it acceptable to discrimination against a person who committed a crime, paid their debt to society and is now seeking to get on with their life?
Again, if we believe that is impossible for a criminal to truly pay their debt and become a productive citizen again we have two choices: warehouse them or execute them. Anything else is inappropriate.
The question we should be asking is why was Wilson Santiago not in prison? It is the flawed criminal justice system that failed here, not Joseph K. McGervey.
B’shalom,
Jeff
September 2nd, 2006 at 9:57 am
Bill, you wrote. “Jill, go back and re-read my proposal. I’m not proposing that a property owner has to be ominiscient — just diligent. If you prefer, we can reverse the burden of proof and limit liability to cases of negligence — of failure to take reasonable care to prevent or stop criminal behavior by tenants on the premises. This is a standard that applies to all kinds of business roles — think about product liability or accounting. Why not to a relationship between a property owner and the people he allows to use the property?”
Because that relationship has not been deemed by the courts or by statute as giving some kind of special connection between the two actors. The reason a dept. of children services can be held liable (and you can get around the state’s immunity) is because courts have found that a special relationship exists between the kids and families under the agency’s auspices and the agency itself.
The relationship between the property owner and the tenant is fiduciary, not social, not guardianship.
Diligence is important, Bill, but it will lead to circumstances where landlords are diligent and their tenants commit crimes. Then what? What if the crime still happens? Stressing diligence will make landlords jump through hoops - fine, maybe there should be more hoops than there are and someone should be checking that they’re jumped through more than anyone is checking right now.
Then what? You’ve improved the landlord’s diligence - but the people looking to rent are still the same.
I think your suggestions do not address the people looking to rent - where can they go? how do we let them go there? Do we not let them go anywhere?
This is my concern with your focus - it’s entirely on the landlord and not on the people looking for a place to live - some of whom may commit more crime, some of whom will not, or not now, but might later. How do we provide for them?
September 2nd, 2006 at 10:03 am
Bill:
I really would like to know where you suggest we put all these people screened out by landlords. I have some experience seeing how sleeping outside or in abandoned buildings can amplify an individual’s problems. I have seen a person’s mental illness become acute because of sleeping in inappropriate spaces. The health problems associated with sleeping outside are numerous and we should strive as a society to stop “throwing away” a segment of our population.
So you want ideas, I got them…
The CDCs seem all about buildings and very little about people. I have visited a number of CDC offices that feature their closest neighbor to their own office a man sleeping in an abandoned house–FOR YEARS!! Imagine, the staff charged with developing the neighborhood come to work everyday ignoring human suffering 15 feet from their front door. How about the CDC starting an absentee landlord public website? Public humiliation of the landlords that allow their property to become an eyesore. This could also contain information on which banks are holding the abandoned property in our neighborhoods. The CDCs need to have a better handle on social services in the community that could help their residents. They should stop trying to get rid of homeless programs and instead make sure that there are experts on mental illness, alcohol and drugs, immigration issues, homelessness, child abuse, etc. in every neighborhood.
Santiago’s mom, in the Plain Dealer today, said that she suspected that her kid was mentally ill. So, why aren’t we putting more resources and manpower into the mental health system? At this point, we serve only those who are a threat to themselves or others (Obviously, Santiago was a threat.) We do not provide inexpensive or free mental health counseling to prevent people from becoming violent. We also have a failed alcohol and drug system, which serve people for a month and then the addicted individual is on their own. They also must cure themselves with sobriety before anyone will help. How about demanding some diversity in our alcohol and drug services? Is the only path out of addiction 12 steps? Does that work for everyone? We need a complete re-thinking of the alcohol and drug system.
What about alternatives to rental relationships operated by non-profits who are responsive to our neighborhoods? The old flop houses should be brought back, but operated as a community resource not for profit. This would be a place that people could stay off the streets, but could get some of the social service help they need to get their life in order.
We have plenty of solutions that do not necessarily make it harder for landlords, tenants and in the end the neighborhood to prosper.
Brian
September 2nd, 2006 at 5:30 pm
Mr. McGervey may not own the property. A bank may hold the title, a bank which perhaps you own stock. If so, do you consider yourself responsible for this?
September 2nd, 2006 at 7:09 pm
Well, he does own it, according to county records, and I don’t own any bank stock. But I take it you’re really asking the hypothetical question: Are shareholders responsible if a corporation owns a house and lets things occur there which endanger the neighborhood. To which the short hypothetical answer is yes. The slightly longer answer is yes, to the extent those shareholders exercise control — just like any other corporate responsibility.
September 2nd, 2006 at 8:25 pm
Bill, from a legal perspective, you are really suggesting that a lot of people with little or no causal relationship take a trip down the slippery slope, when, at issue, still, is the conduct of the tenant and what we, as a society, have or haven’t done with or to that individual. We can shore up all the holes you find in the system connected to the landlord, but we’re still left with the tenant and his or her behavior. Where is the focus on that?
September 3rd, 2006 at 1:49 pm
No, Jill, the issue I raised was not the “conduct of the tenant”. The issue I raised was the effect on the neighborhood environment of having people who live elsewhere buy up a large percentage of the homes, rent them as a business to people they don’t know and have no other relationship with, and then take little or no responsibility for what actually happens in and on their business properties as a result of their business decisions and practices.
That effect is well-known to people in Cleveland neighborhoods. The effect is a rise in crime, property deterioration, anti-social behavior, and community fragmentation — all of which drives people and businesses out of the neighborhoods, drops more units into the private rental market, and pushes the whole vicious cycle forward.
The homeowners and tenants who (inevitably) flee the West 98th and Madison area because of the rape, robbery and murder carried out by Joseph McGervery’s tenant last week will simply be acting out their role in that cycle. Is there somebody reading this who would react otherwise? Jill, how about your neighbors in Pepper Pike? Would you raise your kids there under these circumstances?
Pushing back against these effects — through safety organizing, code enforcement, and social outreach programs, not to mention the CDC homeownership programs that irritate Brian so much — is most of what neighborhood nonprofits do, and have been doing for 25 years or more. Despite all the second-guessing bullshit they have to endure, many of these efforts have literally been heroic. In some neighborhoods ordinary residents put themselves in harm’s way every day to make things a little safer, to curb the slide into lawless chaos next door. You think I’m exaggerating? Come spend a year with your family on some streets where I’ve organized, then we’ll talk about it.
This is not the inevitable effect of a rental market serving low-income tenants… but it is the inevitable effect of landlords who do it badly. You can run a rental business, rent to poor people at affordable rates, keep the units in decent repair, have good relationships with your customers and keep reasonably informed about what’s happening on your property. I know people who do it. But it takes hard, careful unrelenting work — screening, managing, visiting, repairing, collecting. It’s the farthest thing from easy money, and it’s very difficult to pull off personally if you don’t live near your units.
Unfortunately, careless, cynical, wrongheaded and/or incompetent “investors” are a large — if not majority — fact of life in the inner-city rental business. Their carelessness, cynicism, wrongheadedness and incompetence have consequences for the people and communities around their “investments”. Sometimes those consequences are very serious, even deadly. Should they be free to go on avoiding responsibility, reaping the profits while offloading the consequences on others?
I proposed a way to address this problem. Brian responded with a list of proposals for improving housing access for poor and homeless people, which I largely support but which don’t speak to the issue I raised. Otherwise, I’m not hearing any better ideas.
September 3rd, 2006 at 2:06 pm
Bill, all those things - your concerns, Brian’s concerns - are all legitimate. I’ve not denied that and I wouldn’t. What I’m saying is, in addition to what I meant implicitly but will now say explicitly which is thank you for opening up this discussion, is that no matter how many of your suggestions and Brian’s are implemented, the people who want to be the tenants are still out there. What do we do with them?
You are right - that is tangential - but it’s not isolated from your points, I don’t think anyway, obviously.
I know it’s a rhetorical question but I’ll answer it anyway. Of course I would not live in a neighborhood, no matter what it’s name or locale was, if I had the ability to NOT live among absentee landlords and unsavory tenants.
However, do you know that I’ve signed up for and received alerts when sexual predators have moved into my neighborhood? Yes - there are at least a few along Lander Road in Pepper and Orange (at least as of last spring). In fact, late last spring, there was an incident at the schools’ campus of a man watching the children from the edge of the woods. The day after I heard about the incident, I received an alert that someone registered as a sexual predator had just moved into a development that backs up to the school campus. I immediately emailed the superintendent, the principals and so on saying, what do you do about this? What is in place? Is this the person who was watching the children? What are the rules? Is he allowed to be that close and so on.
So I don’t pretend that it can’t happen here, Bill. But I don’t know the answers about that person - well, I didn’t, untilI asked. Then I did and have to live with it, and be more diligent myself.
Anyway - I feel like I’m going way too far afield and I don’t mean to distract from your primary concern. I just think that again, it’s like how people approach budget problems differently: you can stress spending less, you can stress earning more. OR…you can stress both. That’s all I wanted to contribute here: we still have to do something with the people released and looking for place to live, Bill. Everything we suggest - you suggest, Brian suggests - as way to improve landlords and tenancy won’t mean a thing if we refuse to recognize who the payee is.
September 4th, 2006 at 1:35 pm
Bad idea, Bill.
You call him an absentee landlord… but then you say:
“Now my understanding from talking to people in the neighborhood is that Joseph McGervey is not a bad guy, as absentee landlords go. He shows up at community meetings. He gives his phone number to neighbors so they can report problems. He respond to complaints.”
This person is involved more than most landlords!
Yes, I agree he should have done a better job of screening the tentant — big mistake! Do credit checks show criminal history? Is criminal histroy easy to get?
Your “law” would probably run most the McGervey-type landlords out of business — people who talk to neighbors, attend meetings, listen to complaints. They would be replaced by large corporations running rental housing with faceless high paid lawyers who would never talk to anyone — except a judge. They would probably hide ownership so that you could never figure it out from normal public records. Your knee-jerk law would actually make things worse.
Bad idea, Bill
September 4th, 2006 at 1:56 pm
Valdis, yes, a criminal background check is easy to get with the individual’s consent.
September 4th, 2006 at 2:58 pm
Bill,
While I understand and can share the frustration that absentee landlords have on neighborhoods, your proposal is a bit flawed.
As Brian and Jill mentioned, even if such a law were to be implimented, it does not address the root problem: where would those ex-cons live ? Separating them from the public is discriminating them and hampers their attempts to becoming a productive, regular, law abiding citizen.
There’s tons of hypothetical situations that this law could lead to (being responsible for whom you sold your house to and other ones mentioned by Jill, valdis, and others.
Lastly, I was reminded that since there is a shortage of affordable (especially for low-income people) housing in Cleveland (but not nearly as bad as it is in other parts of the country), landlords know that they can neglect their properties a bit, because people need housing and if the renter doesn’t like that the rental is not taken care of and moves out (plus, people often feel it would be too much of a hassle to take the landlord to court, find a lawyer, and pay court courts; so they don’t legally challenge the landlord) will find another client, desperate for housing, to move in.
regards,
will.
September 4th, 2006 at 10:17 pm
Will’s comment is correct — where will ex-cons live if private landlords won’t rent to them?
Of course, there are other concerns — I’ve heard horror stories of some of the things that go on in Cleveland’s rental communities. Things like landlords who trade sex for rent, capitalizing on tenants that don’t know (or don’t care) that such things are illegal. Landlords who don’t give a rat’s ass about the Ohio Revised Code and knowingly allow illegal activity to occur (Ohio law requires landlords to evict anyone they know is committing crimes on their property), et cetera.
Like you said, Bill, these things happen because no one holds landlords accountable. No one. Not the neighbors, not the city, no one. Everybody clucks and shakes their heads when a completely avoidable tragedy occurs, but goes back to their dinner without thinking about the actions leading up to it: the landlord’s neglect, the neighbors’ silence, the topsy-turvy house that Jack built. On to the pot-roast, ignore the night’s news.
September 5th, 2006 at 3:16 am
The hyperbolic tone of most of these posts takes me back to my college days– specifically, the reading I did about the passage of the Pure Food and Drug Act and the Meat Inspection Act of 1906.
After the publication of Upton Sinclair’s THE JUNGLE (which detailed the disgusting conditions in Chicago’s meat-packing plants) there were widespread calls for laws to ensure that food was prepared in sanitary conditions. Naturally, the “beef trust” led the opposition.
But many of the loudest opponents were people who claimed to speak on behalf of the poor.
“These law will make it impossible for poor people to buy meat,” they insisted. “The cost of inspections, sterilization and refrigeration will drive many small butchers and meat suppliers out of business. The remaining ones will be so worried about violating the law that they will only sell products that are too expensive for poor people. This law will just make it impossible for the poor to buy meat.”
Almost every “reformer” stated that rotten meat was merely a symptom of an underlying disease– poverty. “Let’s not waste efforts on a law that will hurt the people it is trying to help,” they concluded. “Let’s first make sure everyone can earn enough money to buy high-quality meat. Then we can pass this law.”
Here’s another similarity between the reformers of 100 years ago and the people opposing Bill. Both groups blithely ignored the other group of victims– responsible businesses who were being hurt by the absence of a law.
The tenants are being hurt the most by irresponsible landlords. But ethical landlords– who perform background checks on prospective tenants and don’t rent to people whose past suggests that they’ll pose a danger to other tenants or the neighbors– are also being hosed.
(And don’t insult my intelligence by telling me that there is no difference between a (a) someone with a history of public drunkenness and vagrancy, (b) someone with multiple DUIs, (c) someone with drug possession and prostitution busts and (d) people like Santiago. The guy had convictions for burglary, drug possession, drug dealing, grand theft, fencing stolen goods and violently resisting arrest. He represents the worst 1/10th of 1 percent of the ex-offender population.)
The ethical landlord’s reward for being dilligent and socially conscious? They have lower occupancy rates than the landlords who rent to anyone, because they turn more people down. Their properties are also less profitable, because:
A. They usually have expenses (maintenance and repairs) that the bad landlords don’t and
B. Landlords who rent to anyone often charge permium rents to bad apples. It’s a lovely scam– they show you one unit, tell you it’s $300 and then have you fill out an application and pay a $50-75 fee. If they get bad news, they tell you the unit got rented before you were approved, but you can have a similar one for $350 a month. If you say no, you lose the non-refundable application fee.
Since ethical landlords make less money in low-income areas, they tend to avoid those neighborhoods– leaving them to the sharks. Also, since bad landlords make more money under this system, they can afford to buy more properties– exerting even more control over the real estate market.
Is this really how we want to reward good and bad behavior?
What happens when we pass the law? What do we do with all the ex-offenders who suddenly can’t rent a place? We do nothing, because they won’t have trouble renting.
My question to the people getting the vapors over Bill’s idea– do you seriously believe that no landlord in the city will rent to ex-offenders if his proposal were to become law? If so, you must believe that landlords in the area routinely obey every proivision of housing laws– that once a law passes or a ruling comes down, they imemdiately snap into compliance on all points.
That strikes me as incredibly naive. I worked with housing/tenant rights groups in three states for about ten years, starting with the Heights Community Congress. My experience is that laws are routinely violated to outrageous degrees. It’s usually quite difficult to get courts to act, so landlords have no incentive to stop breaking the law. Even if you get a decision, they flout the rulings and delay enforcement by claiming poverty, ill health and anything else they can think of.
In a world where many property owners still refuse to rent/sell to minorities, homosexuals and unmarried couples, I simply do not believe landlords all over Cleveland are renting to ex-offenders only because the law prohibits discrimination. I don’t believe they’d suddenly stop if a law were passed. I assume they serve the “sub-prime tenant” market solely because they make a lot of money off it. If you passed a law, landlords would merely keep taking money without checking and focus their attention on ways to avoid liability.
Finally, the people claiming that Bill is proposing some insane, unconstitutional idea need to read up on something called “negligence.” It’s a concept that I know dates back to English common law (maybe earlier), which says that people can and should be held liable for irresponsible behavior. Negligence can be either:
A. Failure to do something that a reasonable person would normally do (such as failing to perform a background check before renting to a tenant), or
B. Doing something that a reasonable person would normally never do (such as rent to an ex-con with a history of violent felonies).
Despite what the late-night ads for lawyers say, negligence is actually quite difficult to prove. There are four standards that need to be met:
1. It must be proven that the person had a duty to oversee, protect or care for someone’s welfare.
2. They must clearly fail to perform their duty through an act of omission or commission (see above).
3. There must be tangible damage, loss or injury.
4. There must be a direct causal relationship between the negligence and the loss.
The problem with Bill’s proposal isn’t the flood of adverse decisions that would result. It is that negigence standards are so high that very few landlords would get nailed. If a non-violent ex-offender shoots a cop, courts would probably rule that the landlord could not reasonably have expected a person with a history of (say) shoplifting busts to become violent.
Even in this case, McGervey would probably skate. The other tenants didn’t suffer a tangible loss due to the shooting (other than quiest enjoyment of premises, and that’s an intangible value). The best they might get would be the chance to break their lease without penalty, on grounds that they wouldn’t have rented if they knew someone like Santiago was in the building.
(And even that would fail if someone had renewed a lease after Santiago had moved in. Assumption being that if you renewed, you didn’t think Santiago was a problem. And if you didn’t think so, why should the landlord think so?)
The policeman’s family definitely wouldn’t get anything, because the failure to do a background check (or decision to rent despite it) didn’t play a direct role in his death. Santiago was a violent felon who was likely to pull a gun no matter where the police tried to arrest him. Unless you could show that McGervey’s actions made an arrest espeically difficult (e.g., Santiago chose the apartment because it had a security gate on the door, which he thought might help in a shootout), there’s no causality between the negligence and the death.
My cynical view is that Bill’s proposal would probably change very little. But that doesn’t mean it isn’t worth trying.
September 5th, 2006 at 12:51 pm
Bill,
I am surprised that you focused on landlord, while overlooking another question, which seems more important. Why the person, who was convicted on numerous counts of violent crime, was living in community in the first place. Why wasn’t he in jail? Looking through his rap sheet makes you wonder, who would release this person from jail at all.
September 5th, 2006 at 2:43 pm
[Note from Bill: The "P.S." section of this comment has been edited, with the commenter's permission, by blanking out several specific names and addresses.]
I, as a Cleveland resident and landlord would like to add my two cents worth to this discussion. I have lived on West Blvd since my family purchased their first home in 1961, and I currently live across the street from my mother who still resides in my childhood home. I am actively involved in our neighborhood watch program, have worked with our council person to have bad tenants removed from our neighborhood, and plan to work to raise the stakes for absentee landlords. My husband and I own several properties, one of them at the southern end of West Blvd. Both of us fervently work to screen our tenants, we only want the best people we can find to put into other peoples’ neighborhoods. That is a responsibility we take very seriously! We run criminal background checks, credit checks, employment history checks, and contact personal references. I don’t think it is too much to ask of any landlord to have a social conscience. In our opinion, checking out prospective tenants, policing the property every few days to make sure it is clean and neat, and immediately addressing any issues arising at a property is as important, if not moreso than collecting rent. Maybe we’re fools, and maybe that’s why we can’t afford to live next door to the McGerveys. Not that we’d want to!
Liz and Eddy
p.s. mcgervey owns a property at _________ housing sex offender _________, and a property on _________ housing _________ who did time for attempted burglary, receiving stolen motor vehicle, posession of criminal tools, and attempted escape.
also, unrelated to this incident, _________ of lakewood heights blvd rented his property at _________ in cleveland to _________. he’s an interesting character, he’s on the sex offender list for the 44111 zip code, and if you look up his criminal record he has done time for two counts of felony murder. where will he move next? i can’t think of anyone i know that would be comfortable with this guy living next door.
September 5th, 2006 at 5:18 pm
In response to Geoff:
Maybe that should be the slogan to get some of these ballot issues on the November ballot, “Pass this Law and it will probably change very little, but that doesn’t mean it isn’t worth trying.”
I do not claim to speak on behalf of poor people. I speak as an advocate for social justice. I can tell you what I hear at every meeting of homeless people when the issue of housing comes up. You can see it in the notes of the meeting we had with the Mayor and you can come to any of our meetings to hear directly from poor people. Every meeting someone complains because landlords do not forgive and no one (employer, landlord, or government) respects that a person has served their time and is now out. Most subsidized buildings make people wait 2-5 years before they will rent to those with a felony background. If the fight is with the judicial system and letting people off early or giving soft sentences that is a separate issue. But, these individuals are not fugatives from the law. They have served their time and were released.
So far, not one person has explained where the people screened out by this new “Landlord Personal Responsibility Act” will live. Who would ever accept a shelter in their city if most of the population were felons who had no possibility of moving into housing because the landlord fear of renting? No matter if it is only 1/10 of the population that is an additional 500 people in our shelters for long periods of time.
Brian
September 6th, 2006 at 2:45 am
Once again, the LIBERALS are the problem. Embracing your section 8 (or should I say housing choice cause it sounds better) programs has completely destroyed that entire neighborhood. The projects have been demolished and all of those non contributors to society have all been dispersed throughout the westside. You are now experiencing the results of your beloved, albeit wrongheaded, desire to embrace diversity. diversity, in your opinion, is our STRENGTH. Gimme a break. It is destroying entire neighborhoods. Want to see Cleveland in five to ten years? Take a look at Detroit. Eighty eight percent of their population is now minority and the place looks like some war ravaged third world city. People with the ability, of both races, will always move away from this absurdity. It has always happened that way and will continue to happen that way. Just admit, you liberal fools, that no respectable persons want to live around these losers, nor do they want their family members influenced by these criminals. WAKE THE HELL UP!!
September 6th, 2006 at 5:45 pm
[...] Why the killer lives on West 98th Street [...]
September 8th, 2006 at 7:26 am
Bill,
As a suburban landlord, barely, I feel clev hts is as urban as some parts of cleveland, I object to the landlord being criticized as I have faced the same types of issues. For example, rented to a tenant, screened etc. However, her family -cousins- used the place freely. one was convicted of assault, aggravated arson and burglary. How do you bar adults from visiting and cohabitating without crossing the lines. I was able to deal with this by being around the property, even sleeping there
Lived under constant fear of tenants associates and family
Furthermore, I have invested in Chinatown and St Clair areas and my properties far exceed the neignbors in upkeep, landscaping etc. largely due to suburban values
and levels of upkeep. Lets not make this an urban vs suburban thing but a call to action re this types of problems