I'm not at all sure that this type of reference to a discussion a month ago fits in with the retooled politics board, so excuse me if this is a breach of the new rules of engagement.
At any rate, just saw last night that the Oakland city council passed an ordinance making it easier to seize properties that foster drug use. Not much coverage in today's papers about the vote, so here's a summary from last week:
http://www.oaklandtribune.com/Storie...?search=filter
I don't have much confidence that this will be anything other than another layer of bureaucracy, but it's been clear that there has to be some response from a political perspective to the homicide rate (100th of the year a few days ago). Maybe this will be the start of a new aggressive approach.
Anyway, I'm posting because I was rather taken aback by this paragraph:
Quote:
|
Quan and Councilmember Larry Reid (Elmhurst-East Oakland) are working on another ordinance that would allow the city to go after properties based on a pattern of drug activity as far as 1,000 feet around them.
|
Uh, can they really do this? I would think that due process/the takings clause/whatever would require the showing of a link between the property and illicit activity that rises to a level above "a pattern of drug activity within 1000 feet." Anybody familiar with these types of ordinances elsewhere?
