Framework for Nuisance Property Abatement
The Near West Side Landlord Compact:
A Framework for Nuisance Property Abatement
Part 1: Introduction
As part of my 10-month LISC AmeriCorps service term with Near West Side Partners, my role as Community Engagement Safety Coordinator included an administrative role in the Near West Side Landlord Compact (NWSLLC). This report intends to inform those interested about the NWSLLC, to provide the framework on how the landlord compact operates and to elaborate on those involved and the roles everyone plays.
Over the last 10 months with Near West Side Partners (NWSP) I worked towards expanding the scope and attendance of the meeting while trying to keep the agenda relevant and representative by including the top nuisance properties in the Near West Side (NWS). I helped in preparing and running the meetings and helped develop strategies to enhance its effectiveness. I served as a point of contact regarding reports of any nuisance related behavior or events in the NWS and I helped facilitate the process of escalation. I served as an outreach coordinator for nuisance related issues, often working with neighbors and neighborhood associations. I also made it a point of my service to canvas the neighborhood regularly and report instances of blight and nuisance behavior.
Overview of the Landlord Compact
The landlord compact is a monthly meeting hosted by Near West Side Partners. Its mission is to create a forum consisting of community members and partners to address and ultimately abate nuisances and chronic nuisance properties. Through reports and a legal framework, community partners address individual properties that have a negative impact on the community. Resources are made available to landlords to assist them on a path to higher operating standards.
The NWSLLC came into being when NWSP was formed in 2015. However, the neighborhoods in the Near West Side have had landlord compact meetings for almost three decades. The NWSLLC is both a continuation of the Avenues West Landlord Compact but also adjoined the West End Landlord Compact into one meeting serving all seven neighborhoods of the Near West Side: Merrill Park, Piggsville, Historic Concordia, Miller Valley, Cold Spring Park and Martin Drive.
The landlord compact meetings are a tool for multi-unit property owners in the Near West Side of Milwaukee to learn and engage in best practices. With representatives from the Milwaukee Police Department (MPD), Department of Neighborhood Services (DNS), Safe and Sound and the District Attorney via the Community Prosecution Unit (CPU) and the Near West Side Safety Ambassadors all provide updates and resources for dealing with nuisance properties and challenging tenants.
Attendees of the meetings consists of three pools of people; Landlords, organization representatives and concerned neighbors. We invite all landlords in the NWS to attend our meetings, but it is the landlords of negative impact properties that receive the lion’s share of attention. The representative arms of the city and those agents with key interests in addressing these concerns habitually frequent the meetings and combine to form a neighborhood coalition of sorts. Concerned neighbors have an opportunity to lodge complaints both to landlords and the neighborhood coalition. In this sense the landlord compact acts as a forum to mediate between neighborhood actors and to escalate complaints in a formalized manner.
NWSLLC Leadership
To fully understand the NWSLLC one must be familiar with the people involved and the roles they serve in the community. In these terms the NWSLLC is much more than a monthly meeting; it is an amalgamation of these agents and their roles as catalysts of positive change.
Since its forming in 2015, the NWSLLC meetings are chaired by Kent Cory, Property Manager for Wiegand Enterprises, Richard Lucas of Lucas Security and Keith Stanley, Executive Director of NWSP. These three individuals bring a diverse set of experience to the table and represent three critically important set of expertise in terms of addressing nuisance property issues.
Kent Cory carries his experience in multi-unit management over to the landlord compact. He understands what it takes to manage multi-units effectively. His no-nonsense approach in adapting to challenges is a breath of fresh air and provides a much needed guiding element to the meetings. Kent understands how property managers should behave, what they are obligated to do and doesn’t have any patience for those negligent in their duty. His experience serves the NWSLLC very well, as the landlords attending the meetings can learn a great deal from Kent. He can also be credited for the timeliness of the meetings acting as the chief moderator and de facto leader of the meetings.
Richard Lucas is an incredible asset to the community. Having his ear to the ground, in terms of safety and security, he is very aware of what is going on in the community. His role in safeguarding the community and his generosity and candor leave an indelible mark in the NWS. The value he brings to the table is next to impossible to replicate, and as such is most deserving of praise for his conduct and valued for his partnership.
Keith directs a very diverse and active community organization and leads an extraordinary team at NWSP. As a figurehead in the NWS, civic leader and representative of the community, Keith understands the importance of the landlord compact’s mission as well as anyone. His concern for safety and security go hand in hand with a greater vision for the Near West Side in which property ownership plays a large role. In terms relating to nuisance behavior, the mission of NWSP is clear; to reduce crime, blight, nuisance activity and disinvestment and to promote assets and development. While the landlord compact is just one project of many, it serves a terrifically important role and when executed properly can help NWSP achieve some success in its mission. On Keith’s behalf, I assumed a seat at the table during most of the 2017 compact schedule.
Moving forward and as my service term ended, Community Prosecution Unit (CPU) Coordinator, Bobby McQuay assumed the seat. Bobby and I have operated in conjunction with one another since we both came aboard in late 2016. From escalating criminal and nuisance issues to community grants and outreach efforts our roles saw us meeting quite regularly. His role as the CPU Coordinator is to act as a bridge between the community and the arms of the law. This role should not be understated; neither should his work ethic, awareness, or competence. Bobby’s role with the CPU provides a greater sense of jurisprudence to the meeting’s leadership as he works directly with the District Attorney's office and the District 3 Police Department. The landlord compact and neighborhoods of the NWS are in good hands as he is in a position to build the capacity of the NWSLLC in the most meaningful ways.
Power of Partnerships within the NWSLLC
The leadership of the landlord compact would be idle if it weren’t for the community partners that are represented and heavily involved in the meeting proceedings. These community partners form a kind of coalition focused on community order, safety and cleanliness.
Residents, neighbors and businesses owners have the most at stake when dealing with nuisance properties; thus their input on these matters is critical since our neighborhood organization aims to serve them. I consider myself very lucky to have been given the opportunity to work with some of these people and hope that they continue their great service to this community.
I would personally like to thank Deputy District Attorney Jeff Altenburg for the role he has served in the Near West Side. During 2017 Jeff served as the District 3 Community Prosecutor, our team captain and the first person we would turn to for advice regarding criminal and nuisance elements. His cordial demeanor and availability were a blessing to the NWS as he has never failed in providing us considerate and measured counsel. He is a man of admirable quality, his dedication and resolve to not only uphold the law, but to serve the public in greater terms inspires confidence in those around him. We understand that Jeff is destined to serve the City in a greater capacity, but it is the fact that he concerned himself with these more grass-roots efforts that show his true character. As Jeff transitions out of his role with the Near West Side CPU, his successor, Assistant District Attorney Catelin Ringersman, will be taking on the challenge and has demonstrated a distinct aptitude, approachability, and high moral character needed to succeed in this role. We are very appreciative to have such great and capable people to help navigate these often precarious and sensitive matters. Without the CPU team the NWSLLC would lose a large portion of its capacity to address nuisance behavior and negative impact properties.
Special Enforcement Inspector John Yang has been a life-saver in terms of access to the City’s Department of Neighborhood Services. John has played a critical role in the Landlord Compact, providing access to DNS activity and updates and has also served as our primary point of contact for anything relating to housing standards and inspections. Regarding property management, John has played a pivotal role in bridging the gap between standards set by the City, attempts to increase these standards, and in identifying what is actually happening in the properties. He has helped me personally on multiple occasions in understanding the complicated role DNS plays and its policies and procedures.
Our Safety Ambassadors play a vital and very visible role in the NWS. Their role directly translates into the NWSLLC mission as they have observed and are able to comment on a great number of nuisance related activity and properties. I want to thank our ambassadors for all their hard work. They are our boots on the ground day in and day out. They increase our eyes and ears, our outreach efforts and reports. They see the climate of the community and feel its ebbs and flows. They talk to the folks that most of us don’t have the opportunity to. They allow us to tune in to a segment of the population that we aim to serve.
The PARC Team (Promoting Assets, Reducing Crime) and its partnership with Marquette University have demonstrated a high degree of professionalism and support to the NWSLLC. We appreciate all of the work that has been done in addressing people’s perception of the NWS, and value your role in bringing service minded university students and staff into the arena of community organizing, and public service work. We are very grateful for the work that has been done forwarding and expanding the Good Neighbor Designation. This program is very relevant and in line with the NWSLLC mission, as it is designed to promote best practice and raise the standards of property owners. Too often we focus on negative impact properties, and while our aim is to convert nuisance property owners into assets in the community, the Good Neighbor Designation provides a distinct, step-by-step framework to accomplish exactly that. The framework goes beyond the status quo standards and allows multi-unit property owners the ability to showcase this preferred management style.
To our police officers in District 3, our Community Liaison Officers and Probation and Parole as well as the Marquette University Police Department, we want to thank you for your dedicated service, your partnership with community institutions and representation in our meetings. These officers provide information and allow us to analyze the type and amount of calls for service and incident reports. This sensitive information is vital in understanding trends, prioritizing nuisance properties, and ultimately in compelling owners and managers to adopt new and better procedures and management styles to abate nuisance behavior. We acknowledge the necessity of our arrangement and wish that it grows into a stronger bond; a greater link between the community and the law allows us to serve the entire community in greater terms
Part 2: The Agenda
The landlord compact agenda is a crucial element to the meeting in that the information contained directs the meeting with a prioritized nuisance property list. Generally speaking, what it means to be on the nuisance property list is that there needs to have been either verified, criminal or sufficient reported nuisance activity that has occurred. It also means that the issues are being escalated accordingly. A spotlight if you will, that is focused on the property and will be considered by a community of people and representative arms of the neighborhood to affect change by means of compelling property owners to abide by higher standards and increased investment with a particular focus on safety measures.
The agenda’s nuisance property list typically consists of between 20-25 multi-unit apartment buildings, each ranked based on a process that takes into account recent criminal and nuisance history, eyewitness and neighborhood reports. While every property listed on the agenda is, or has displayed criteria that warrant nuisance designation, there is a difference between properties on our agenda’s nuisance property list and the City’s nuisance designation, known as 80-10. There will be a greater discussion of the City’s 80-10 in part 5 of this paper. Our nuisance list doesn’t necessarily mean the property has the city’s 80-10 designation; instead our list serves as a pathway to 80-10 nuisance designation. Our goal is to prod landlords into action and to address the preeminent issues associated with multi-unit ownership.
While considering ways to expand the NWSLLC and ensure the nuisance list remains representative and relevant, I added several components throughout the year. I added sections for vacant properties, businesses, and blight reports. We found that given the time constraints of the meeting and with summer approaching along with the increase of activity, that a slimmer, more concise agenda was the best plan. We opted to keep a section for businesses while omitting the other sections. Currently the NWSLLC nuisance property list contains both multiunit apartment buildings and businesses. We determined that adding businesses that have a negative impact is in line with the overarching strategy. To this point, landlords are also operating a business, and the framework of the landlord compact is capable of addresses both.
Advancing the Agenda; Adding Properties
New additions to the nuisance property list begin the first steps in our process of addressing and escalating the property. It begins a process where additional information on the property will be gathered and tracked for at least 60 days. Heightened surveillance is likely also issued, and property will be addressed at the meeting where the representative arms of the city will have an opportunity to hear from those involved. Adding properties is a relatively straight forward process. As mentioned in the previous section, there needs to be sufficient reports coming from the neighborhood that justify the addition of a new nuisance property.
The types of neighborhood reports vary greatly; sometimes it happens that a property has a continual issue such as loitering, a problem tenant, blight, prostitution or drug related occurrences. Some issues have been around for years, decades even. Other times a single egregious and often criminal event escalates a particular property such that it finds its way on the list. These reports are sometimes a first point of contact from a resident, business or organization after experiencing or observing nuisance behavior.
The function of these reports is a critical element of the meeting; without current, relevant information the NWSLLC would lose a great deal of its capacity to address and abate these behaviors. It is therefore very important that people report criminal and nuisance activity as it occurs. If not, as is often seen, these types of behavior can propagate and create divisive scenarios.
Removing Properties
The process for removing a nuisance property from the list requires a dramatic reduction in nuisance behavior for a specific period of time. We developed a 60 day rule as a governing procedure for removing properties from the agenda. This means that a property on the list will need to demonstrate a near complete reversal of nuisance behavior for a period of two months. As the NWSLLC meets every 2nd Thursday of the month, the duration of abated nuisance behavior will need to fall between landlord compact meetings.
The way we determine this distinction is by analyzing police calls for service, neighborhood reports and DNS history. Reported activity from all voices in the community weigh in and help to establish the scope of the problem. The size of the nuisance list is also a consideration, as the meeting is limited to one hour each month, so retaining a manageable size list is a priority. There are parts of this process that require us to make value judgments, as nuisance behavior, criminal and DNS service calls vary considerably. We do our best to adequately maintain the most relevant list we can, given the information available.
Ranking Priority in Nuisance Properties
Adjusting the ranks of the nuisance list is a process that involves a similar type of analysis as those found above. We look at crime incidents and call for service history, neighborhood reports, complaints and other current events to prioritize the list, with the particularly egregious and highest levels/highest number of reports of nuisance activity adding the most weight. We look at the past two months of incidents, combine them in a manner that adequately represents recent nuisance activity and allows us gauge where the property belongs on the list.
We do our best to sift through the types of incidents and calls for service to identify the level of negative impact it has. For example a property with 20 calls for service mainly of a pedantic variety (911 abuse, medical, unverified, mental health, etc.) will receive less scrutiny than a property with fewer, but more serious calls for service (IE weapons, shots fired, warrant, assault, robbery, trouble with subject, drugs, prostitution, sex offenses, etc.). We also look at proportionality when gauging nuisance severity. We look at the number of units a building has in proportion to the number of incidents, reports and calls for service.
I would like to stress that the system we developed and is in place is not perfect, but we do our best to consider all evidence before making judgments about a property. The next part will address in greater detail the process of escalation and our capacity to do so
Part 3: The Process of Escalation:
Outreach and the Legal Framework for Nuisance Abatement
Once a property is on the NWSLLC nuisance property list, the next phase in the process of escalation includes a greater focus on the property by means of allocating more time and resources by NWSP the CPU and MPD. This process implies several things will likely happen if nuisance activity continues. Outreach attempts first by NWSP then the CPU and MPD. This layered approach is the framework for escalation via outreach. Additional neighborhood reports, blight reports and history of reports will be sought after to provide evidence and to forward citations and orders. The property will also be up for nomination for us to pursue the 80-10 Nuisance Designation.
Outreach
There are two distinct types of outreach that play out in this arena: Outreach from NWSP, CPU, DNS and MPD to landlords, and outreach from concerned residents and neighbors to NWSP, the CPU, DNS and MPD. While both types of outreach are in response to some nuisance, this section will mainly focus on the importance of outreach policies from NWSP, CPU, DNS and MPD to landlords.
The outreach to landlords from NWSP, CPU, DNS, and MPD is designed to prevent properties from continuing along the path to receiving the 80-10 nuisance designation and further legal and civic action. Outreach to the landlords may take several forms as there are multiple representative people and agencies that attend the meeting and may wish to correspond with a landlord, see part Part 2 of this paper to revisit some of these people and the organizations they represent. For NWSP, often times the first point of contact to a landlord comes in the form of a letter to a landlord indicating that their property has nuisance concerns and that we invite them to attend the NWLLC. While NWSP blanket mails postcards to landlords on a monthly basis, it is the nuisance letter that escalates the issue for the first time on our end.
In some cases aldermen, police captains and other civic leaders will be copied on these letters. Informing community leaders of nuisance issues can help efforts, and it displays to the landlord that a unified front exists, acts as a show of force, and shows the serious nature the nuisance behavior has in the community. Letters to nuisance property landlords should be sent each month to every nuisance property owner identified on the list, as well as those that are in contention for addition. NWSP fulfills this obligation if no other outreach effort has been put forth from the CPU.
Automated and persistent outreach to landlords is a very important step in the process of abating nuisance activity. It serves several purposes; it increases meeting attendance by landlords, it ensures landlords are aware of the meeting and its intention, it makes landlords aware of nuisance issues on their property are being escalated, it provides evidence in the form of attempts to contact. Outreach is important because if there isn’t constant and persistent contact, a landlord may see this as an opportunity to shirk responsibility, resume a sense of absenteeism and think that the problem is not serious enough to require greater investment.
If there is no response and the nuisance activity continues then we forward the information to the CPU team. Then the CPU team attempts to make contact with the owner via the CPU coordinator. If there is still no response the CPU Assistant District Attorney or Community Prosecutor will attempt to reach out. By this point we would have begun researching the property and requested incident and call for service reports from DNS and the police department. Using this data to investigate a building is important in the outreach process, as all parties involved NWSP, CPU, DNS and MPD should be aware of everything.
Typically once outreach has escalated to this point the landlord will respond, as the legal framework for nuisance property abatement has begun, it carries with it legal ramifications. It is often the case that DNS is also involved in the process, as disinvested landlords with nuisance activity often employ substandard maintenance. If a nuisance property does receive the 80-10 designation the property can go into billing, in which fines initiated by DNS are imposed on a regular basis.
The escalation process is designed to compel landlords to address these issues, step up their management style, implement safety features and make appropriate decisions to abate the nuisance behavior occurring on their property. If they fail to do these things then legal ramifications and billing, which affects a landlord’s pocketbook, are logical next steps to compel owners to do more.
Another type of outreach or escalation is achieved by conducting Crime Prevention through Environmental Design (CPTED) surveys. These surveys investigate particular properties by looking at all manners of operation and specifically looking at safety and security concerns. As part of my role as safety coordinator, I conducted gas station surveys and began, but did not complete surveys on liquor and convenience stores. The PARC team conducted CPTED Surveys as part of the Good Neighbor Designation criteria. The CPU team meets with landlords and discusses CPTED principals as part of the nuisance abatement planning. I believe MPD may also conduct CPTED surveys, but I was not privy to any during my service. The data derived from these surveys are very important tools in the fight to abate nuisance and blight, and can add considerable weight to the other various reports.
Just as NWSP, the CPU, and police department carry out outreach measures, so the neighborhood at large reaches out to us. Outreach from concerned neighbors, neighborhood associations, businesses and organizations come to NWSP on a regular basis. NWSP aims to serve the community in this context, and this is one way that NWSP is able to facilitate the needs of the community. By acting as a major point of contact to the community, NWSP plays a coordinating role when issues are presented.
Legal Framework
Once a property has displayed sufficient nuisance behavior to warrant addition to the NWSLLC nuisance list it is likely that there exists sufficient evidence that the property can also be subject to the 80-10 nuisance designation. In our case, the legal framework has several components to it. First, there is the CPU escalation in which the Community Prosecutor begins formally addressing the property owner. Next, the police department reaches out and asks the landlord to submit a plan of action to address each specific cited nuisance, violation and safety concern. Once the plan of action is submitted by the landlord it is up to the police department to approve or deny it.
The links below provide details on the 80-10 designation and MPD procedures:
Definition of 80-10 Nuisance Designation
MPD Standard Operating Procedures of Cases in Pursuance of 80-10 Nuisance Designation
Nuisance Abatement Plans
Defining nuisance abatement carries with it a certain degree of ambiguity as each concerned party can vary greatly in their guidelines, methods and will. I added a segment below that highlights each organization’s role in nuisance abatement. The CPU and MPD initiated nuisance abatement plans are quite clear, and follows legal guidelines. Meanwhile NWSP, whose role in representing the community at large, may wish to see a greater response from the legal community in regards to compelling landlords to act in accordance to greater ownership standards. There is often a sense that enough isn’t being done, at least that sentiment resonates with the concerned residents and businesses that attend the NWSLLC.
Legal statutes and ordinances become increasingly important in these proceedings as they dictate how, and to what extent we are able to act in accordance with the law, particularly in attempting to raise the standards to which landlords are beholden. NWSP strength doesn’t necessarily lie completely in the legal framework; there is power in a united voice coming from the community. When there is this general agreement, it brings about an intensification of legal pursuits and a higher level of scrutiny moving forward.
NWSP: Takes a neighborhood centric approach to nuisance abatement. Typically vying for greater measures to be enacted, NWSP serves as a coordinator in these efforts, amplifying neighborhood concerns and facilitating cooperation and partnerships to address these types of negative impacts. NWSP hosts the landlord compact, conducts surveys and coordinates outreach.
PARC: The PARC team plays a large role coordinating working teams in the NWS, facilitating many of the actors involved in the nuisance abatement arena, and brings together a very talented and dedicated team of people. PARC uses a data driven approach to address safety concerns, it conducts surveys and enacts plans to investigate people’s perceptions about the NWS. PARC also conducts Good Neighbor Designation CPTED surveys and nominates buildings for the Good Neighbor Designation.
CPU: Serves as a bridge between the community and the legal community. The office houses the CPU coordinator, the Community Prosecutor, the NWS Safety Ambassadors and serves as a waypoint for police officers. The institution of the CPU is of tremendous importance in terms of giving neighbors the ability to escalate issues without having to call the police directly. It also provides the first legal steps to addressing nuisances.
DNS: Maintains the minimum operating standards for buildings and requires that all inhabited buildings are up to that code. Issues notices and citations to owners to compel investment and address concerns. Has the power to put owners into billing status whereby the owners are fined, sometimes regularly, for noncompliance.
MPD: Serves to respond to reports of nuisance behavior and in doing so creates serviceable evidence in the form of calls for service and incident reports. MPD enacts a formal nuisance abatement plan after a specific property has been escalated to that point.
Part 4: Expanding Nuisance Abatement and Future Planning
Expanding Nuisance Abatement
I am of the opinion that the NWS would be best served by an expansion of measures against nuisance properties. With two large property management companies owning almost 15% of the total units in the NWS, they have essentially industrialized medium to low quality housing in the area. Properties from these landlords have dominated the NWSLLC nuisance property list for years. Thus, I think it’s fair to say that more serious measures need to be enacted to protect the neighborhood and tenants from substandard housing. The goal here is to guarantee that they are providing quality, safe housing, and since they have shown a degree of ineptitude in doing so to this point it stands to reason that they be held accountable if they fail.
While working on the NWSLLC we found ourselves prioritizing nuisance properties every month, but we knew that these properties were not the only ones with nuisance issues. The current process involves requesting data from MPD for properties currently on the list. However, since there are many other properties with nuisance issues not on the list, I believe it would serve the community to know which other properties have considerable and high levels of incidents and calls for service, for example smaller property management companies. This additional data would serve the compact mission by giving relevant information to those addressing the nuisance properties.
Another step to increasing the scope of the compact mission is through legislation. By forwarding support for legislation that increases the ability of these working teams to address nuisances, our capacity would grow. NWSP is in a position to counter the strong landlord lobby by bringing a large portion of the community on board in support of these kinds of legislation.
As part of the CPU and MPD nuisance abatement plans, creating a requirement for compulsory attendance of nuisance property owners/management would ensure that absenteeism in these affairs isn’t propagated. This would guarantee that the voice of the community is heard by landlords, and is a meaningful action implying a greater sense of duty to the community.
Ensuring that lines of communication remain open between landlords, neighbors, NWSP, MPD, safety teams and the CPU is important. This can be very difficult to ensure, but attempts need to be made regularly to increase partnership and a greater sense of unity in the NWS. I believe we are all working towards the similar goals, so it stands to reason that it should be made a priority.
The pathway to 80-10 designation and billing needs to be clear, concise and expedited. This is the most important facet to nuisance abatement and is the main threat to disinvested property owners. NWSP should have a list of all the properties that meet the criteria for 80-10 designation in the NWS in addition to the properties that are currently have the designation and/or are in billing. I do not believe NWSP should pursue the designation in all cases, rather this information should be available when reports come in, and to increase the accuracy and relevance of the NWSLLC and nuisance abatement measures.
Future Planning
In planning for next year and beyond, I believe it there are several ways to increase the efficiency and effectiveness of the landlord compact. I believe that revising and automating parts of the outreach component will save time while targeting more nuisance landlords.
NWSP may experience shifts in capacity and working hours to devote to the NWSLLC as circulating staff via interns and AmeriCorps rotate. Thus, I believe that creating a system that better automates the outreach process is a necessity. The monthly postcard mailing list needs to be combed through and remapped. The current list is too large and has many redundancies. A shorter more concise postcard list will save a lot of money.
Automating the nuisance property outgoing letters should be done as well. Every month all properties on the NWSLLC nuisance list should receive a letter informing them of the transgression and inviting them to the compact. This letter can be changed to a postcard for automation purposes, but I believe that the formality of receiving a letter has a greater impact on the person reading it. Either way, automating that process will reach more nuisance property owners and be more effective in those terms. These systems will save time, be more targeted, and save reduce mailing costs.
Getting Bobby McQuay involved is very important; he is in such a great position to make a bigger impact regarding the scope of the landlord compact. His crucial role in the CPU adds weight to the meetings and will increase his exposure to neighborhood concerns. Most importantly, I believe is his role liaising with the police department and community prosecutor. This collaboration is so important in terms of having access to information regarding incidents and calls for service.
I believe that supporting Representative Evan Goyke and his legislation. Ask him to speak at the NWSLLC and promote additional legislation. The Aldermen should also be informed and form a kind of coalition to support measures that will ultimately help the neighborhood be more united, cleaner and safer. The City attorney would likely play a very large role in these kinds of proceedings, especially when it comes to attempting to pass citywide legislation.
In adopting a specific agenda, NWSP needs to formalize its demands. We began working on a list to include some criteria for increasing ownership standards and considered it for submission, but it became clear very quickly that these types of lists, like the one below, need to be very well thought out. I found out very quickly that moving on something like this will require legislators, city attorneys aldermen and the police department to, in certain terms, agree with the plan. The list below is not a formal plan, rather a conceptual draft, only included here to show readers some examples of demands.
That on-site, full-time management is available at every building in addition to maintenance staff.
That the owner provides an after-hours contact
That all signage include current building management contact information
That the owner provides onsite security; perhaps on a basis that considers the number of calls for service proportional to the number of service calls and incidents.
That the owner participate in a CPTED survey; Good Neighbor Designation survey or CPU run CPTED survey
That the owner registers the property with the City of Milwaukee Department of Neighborhood Services; all multi-unit properties must register with City of Milwaukee.
That the owner pose ‘No Loitering’ signage in clearly visible locations to tenants and visitors
That the owner establish a screening process for new tenants; management must demonstrate a clear understanding and universal approach
That the owner provides MPD, DNS, and CPU updates and tenant information as needed and within legal limits.
This type of list needs to be thoughtfully considered, retailored and amended to provide a meaningful framework designed to increase our ability to address nuisance properties. NWSP is in a position to help identify and create a list, while the CPU team is in a position to broach the subject with MPD and the City Attorney.
Final Thoughts on Securitization:
The safety teams have gotten together to secure funding to purchase a network of radios in the neighborhood. This system of communication, if used effectively, can help coordinate safety efforts and increase the response by parties other than MPD. If coupled with and increase of safety team patrols in targeted areas, as there are several security branches and agencies operating in the NWS, I believe that these developments can have a large and measurable impact on safety. An increase in the security parameters of active security agencies and anchors institutions would complement this agenda, and I am a very strong proponent of those agencies increasing their operational boundaries to include several targeted areas.
To this point, we have in the past asked for greater number of MPD patrols in certain areas, especially along Wells St between 27th and 35th Streets. These patrols have had a positive effect on amount of loitering and public drinking observed. An increase in MPD patrols combined with an increase in other security patrols from other organization will provide a formidable presence.
In addition to the Safety Waypoint at Harley Davidson, I believe NWSP should lobby for another MPD Waypoint somewhere in the area of Kilbourne and 27th. I think this intersection somewhat defines the epicenter of higher crime and nuisance behavior in the area. So, in the spirit of creating a formidable front to promote law and order in the area, I think a police waypoint would help a great deal.
Increasing the dialogue with property owners is important too; this dialogue can have very meaningful effects in the process of getting a property owner out of nuisance status, even for building relationships with good landlords. Promoting good landlord practice is just as important as challenging negative impact properties. It just so happens that the focus often shifts to the negative more frequently.
There have been times when I wished that DNS was able to access nuisance properties more easily. Some of the worst examples of blighted property have had owners deny DNS access, and it serves nothing positive except that they are legally able to do so. I am in support of forwarding any process that would help DNS access nuisance and blighted properties.
