City Council walks fine line on Chronic Nuisance Ordinance

We all want Coeur d'Alene to be clean and safe. A neighborhood of well-kept homes is nice to see. So, along those lines we support the "Chronic Nuisance Properties Ordinance" that was recently approved by the City Council.

But we do have reservations.

The council's decision was not just about code enforcement. It goes beyond that. It is about striking the right balance between public safety and individual property rights. And leave no doubt, finding that right balance is not easy.

On one hand, the need for stronger tools seems clear enough. Chronic nuisance properties, described as homes or buildings repeatedly tied to crime, drug activity, or disorder, can degrade entire neighborhoods. We know people who have lived next to such properties. It is not good. They strain police resources, frustrate and worry residents, and can undermine community safety. 

The proposed Chapter 9.15 would give the city more ways to respond, including clearer definitions, streamlined enforcement, and the ability to issue citations or seek court-ordered abatement. In that sense, the ordinance represents a step toward protecting quality of life. We like that. 

A city report states this: "It is not clear how many properties would be potentially affected by this new Ordinance. However, this can be considered another tool the City can use to deal with criminal activity."

It goes on to state, "As written, the ordinance allows the City to prohibit occupancy of 'Chronic Nuisance Properties.'”

Mind you, Coeur d'Alene is not the first to tackle this issue. Cities like Garden City, Idaho, Liberty Lake, and Seattle already use similar frameworks to address persistent problem properties. 

We are all for supporting enforcement of the city's laws.

The ordinance, as written, allows the city to designate a property as a chronic nuisance and potentially prohibit its occupancy, subject to court approval. That raises some questions: What happens to tenants who may not be responsible for the behavior in question? How are property owners notified, and what opportunities do they have to correct issues before severe measures are taken? What if someone just prefers a messy property?

And who holds the authority to make these determinations? Currently, that responsibility would rest with the chief of police or a designee. While this approach mirrors other jurisdictions, it concentrates significant power in a single office. 

There is also uncertainty about cost and scope. The city acknowledges that enforcement and potential demolition could be expensive, even if some costs may eventually be recovered. 

Idaho, as we all know, is big on property rights. Idahoans do not like someone telling them what they can do with their property. That much we know.

Once again, government finds itself trying to take action to protect the community, build public trust and have a law that will be effective. All the while, it doesn't want to infringe on property rights.

The City Council aims to find the right balance on this issue. We think they found it. The city is being careful and deliberate. It does not want to unintentionally harm residents or prompt lawsuits. But it can't ignore the issue or kick it down the road. This action seems prudent.

As we said at the start, we all want safe neighborhoods. We all want clean properties next to us. This ordinance approved by the City Council is a move in that direction.