The Boulder City Council has strengthened its four-year-old “nuisance-abatement law” leaving landlords clenching their fists and students scratching their heads
The Boulder City Council has strengthened its four-year-old “nuisance-abatement law”, leaving landlords clenching their fists and students scratching their heads. The nuisance abatement law, which was passed in 2003, was expanded at the Boulder City Council meeting on Tuesday night to include offenses to state laws as infractions that can count as strikes. To the chagrin of landlords across the city, landlords can now be brought to court, rather than the tenants themselves, after tenants have committed two strikes. The definition of a strike has been expanded to include common offenses like underage drinking, which, according to the Daily Camera, is the most frequent citation issued by the Boulder police.
Bob Gentles, a landlord for several properties located on the Hill, said he didn’t understand how landlords were to blame for the transgressions of tenants.
“I think it’s completely irresponsible of the city to have the law to begin with,” Gentles said. “It’s against the law for me to be on a property without giving a tenant notice, so how could I possibly police them on a 24-hour basis? It puts the landlord in a position where he has to act like a police officer.”
With the law now including underage drinking as an offense, the obvious affected population would be students from CU who have given the Hill the reputation of a “party-zone” over the years. Gentles says the law wont affect the students partying habits, though.
“If they want the kids to change their behavior, this won’t help,” he said. “If anything, it could make them think that anything they do wrong could be blamed on their landlords, and not them.”
David Thayer, a sophomore business major who lives on the Hill, agreed.
“It’s not going to stop us from having parties or anything at our house,” he said. “It affects our landlords, not us, so I don’t see why we should be concerned, or why it was even passed.”
Other students were more wary of the effects of the changes in the law. Sam Ansel, a sophomore political science major, worried that landlords might make their tenants sign waivers agreeing to pay for any legal costs that their behavior could lead to, or hike up rent prices to safeguard against court fees.
“They’re going to start charging more overall for rent to cover themselves for things like this,” Ansel said. “Or, if its legal, they might add parts to our leases that make us responsible for any of their court costs if we mess up.”
Elizabeth Cuje of the Campus Press reported that a sunset provision of the law was created in response to the public outcry over the measure. The provision provides that the changes will be re-evaluated in 2009, and will not continue unless the council votes to maintain them, essentially making giving the new laws a two-year trial period.
Still, landlords are not satisfied. Gentles wanted to know if the city would fairly enforce the changes in the law to all parts of the city.
“It seems unequal, like student dominated areas like Goss Grove and the Hill are being targeted,” Gentles said. “If someone in the low-income housing areas [which are run by the city] has a party that high school kids go to, are they going to then ticket the city council or the mayor? It just doesn’t seem like the right way to run a city.”
For more on the changes to the law, see here
Contact staff writer Brian Beer at brian.beer@thecampuspress.com
