Issue: Tenants are losing their properties without being notified and heard in Chronic Nuisance Ordinance jurisdictions. They are losing their property and liberty interest, whiles people in similar situations that are not under the CNO are not.
Rule: Due Process/ Mathews test/ Additional safeguards - “due process requires that, when a State seeks
to terminate an interest . . . it must afford notice and opportunity for hearing appropriate to the
nature of the case before the termination becomes effective.”
Summary/Analysis: In most CNO jurisdiction, tenants are not notified of CNO strikes nor are they aware that their property was declared a chronic nuisance until eviction time. Furthermore, they are not involved in the abatement process and cannot defend themselves on the police decision. Innocent roommates of the accused tenant are affected, and also forced out of their homes without notice. Both of these tenants are evicted instantaneously and presumed homeless. Understandably, when someone becomes disruptive or a nuisance to a particular area and police are required to show, this can be costly and time consuming. However, handing a notice to only the landlord and not the tenant is not the most productive way to combat that tenant’s disruptive behavior. In order to change a problem like this, the tenant must know what they should change so they can prevent the behavior. …show more content…
It will prevent governing parties from holding all of the power. Also, with the additional safeguards rules, like the notice, will protect tenants from the chief of police subjective decision. Tenants would not be completely blindsided where they would lose their homes without notice or a chance to defend
Rule: Due Process/ Mathews test/ Additional safeguards - “due process requires that, when a State seeks
to terminate an interest . . . it must afford notice and opportunity for hearing appropriate to the
nature of the case before the termination becomes effective.”
Summary/Analysis: In most CNO jurisdiction, tenants are not notified of CNO strikes nor are they aware that their property was declared a chronic nuisance until eviction time. Furthermore, they are not involved in the abatement process and cannot defend themselves on the police decision. Innocent roommates of the accused tenant are affected, and also forced out of their homes without notice. Both of these tenants are evicted instantaneously and presumed homeless. Understandably, when someone becomes disruptive or a nuisance to a particular area and police are required to show, this can be costly and time consuming. However, handing a notice to only the landlord and not the tenant is not the most productive way to combat that tenant’s disruptive behavior. In order to change a problem like this, the tenant must know what they should change so they can prevent the behavior. …show more content…
It will prevent governing parties from holding all of the power. Also, with the additional safeguards rules, like the notice, will protect tenants from the chief of police subjective decision. Tenants would not be completely blindsided where they would lose their homes without notice or a chance to defend