abralincolnham

However, the statute itself does not require convictions. Do you think judges are failing to do their jobs in assessing whether or not the City has offered "clear and convincing" evidence?

Given that the temporary closing order provision poses some pretty big due process problems, would you be in favor of either cutting it or removing residential property from the type of premises covered by the statute?

Given the change in application, do you think there should be changes to the statutory scheme at all? As I understand it, the law was intended to shutter sex-related businesses in 1970s midtown. Now almost half of Nuisance Abatement actions are brought against residences on the basis of stale evidence of drug activity.

The home is a hugely important private interest vigorously protected by many areas of law. Yet, in application of Nuisance Abatement law, very old evidence can serve as the evidence for pre-hearing deprivation. This seems to fly in the face of due process principles. The City has a multitude of alternative procedures in the criminal and civil law to combat low level drug crime. Ex parte deprivation requires an immediacy that is arguably impossible when the City takes weeks or months to bring an action.

But isn't this another example of why the TCO is problematic? As you say certain situations "may not be enough to oust an entire family." However, between the issuance of the TCO and the hearing, the entire family could be on the street.

That is certainly an improvement! But doesn't it seem to be a stretch to say that a nuisance from 3 months ago would be a nuisance that "immediately requires" abatement?

Edit: that activities from 3 months prior would serve as the predicate for an action based on "ongoing" nuisance.