[migrawatch-public] [Fwd: [watsonvillebrownberets] Escondido scuttles anti-immigrant rental law]

*The San Diego Union Tribune, December 14, 2006*

*Escondido scuttles rental law*

*Deal ends lawsuit, blocks enforcement of ordinance *

*By J. Harry Jones*
STAFF WRITER

December 14, 2006

The housing ordinance the Escondido City Council passed in October to
make it unlawful to rent to illegal immigrants is dead.

NANCEE E. LEWIS / Union-Tribune
Demonstrators in support of barring landlords from renting to illegal
immigrants massed at Escondido City Hall Oct. 4, when the ordinance was
passed.

A month after it was passed, a lawsuit was filed challenging its
constitutionality. *At a closed meeting last night, the council agreed
to end all litigation and permanently keep the city from enforcing the
ordinance, which would have severely penalized landlords for renting to
undocumented immigrants. *

Two Escondido landlords, two illegal immigrants living in the city and
the Escondido Human Rights Coalition filed suit Nov. 3. The ordinance
had been scheduled to go into effect Nov. 17, but a judge put it on hold
and sided with the challengers in a series of preliminary rulings last
month.

In a statement released at 8:30 p.m. yesterday, the city said,
"Continuing the present policy approach would be unnecessarily costly to
the city, and unnecessarily consume the court's time, when other
approaches could provide the answers to the problems more efficiently."

Mayor Lori Holt Pfeiler said last night that she was pleased the council
had reached that conclusion.

"Now we can start working in a positive direction and address the issues
that we have in Escondido," Pfeiler said.

She said she couldn't reveal the vote tally to end the litigation.

The ordinance was approved 3-2 on Oct. 4, with Pfeiler and
then-Councilman Ron Newman dissenting. Voting in favor were Marie
Waldron, Sam Abed and Ed Gallo.

One of the attorneys challenging the ordinance, Alan Mansfield, said a
deal between the parties was reached late yesterday afternoon.

Part of the agreement is that the city will pay $90,000 to those who
sued to partially cover their attorney fees. Mansfield said this
represents a "significantly discounted" amount, but the plaintiffs felt
the discount was warranted because the city came to them with the proposal.

The city statement reads, in part:

"In closed session today, the City Council authorized the City Attorney
and special counsel to execute a stipulation for entry of a final
judgment in the litigation involving the City's immigration ordinance.
The stipulation will make permanent the temporary restraining order
which was previously issued by the Court."

*Last month, U.S. District Judge John A. Houston barred the city from
enforcing the ordinance until the matter could be aired out in court.*

*Houston said he found fault with the legality of the ordinance on a
number of levels.*

*The city's statement said, "The City Council adopted (the ordinance)
based on a concern that the rental of housing to illegal aliens in
Escondido resulted in a number of problems for the City. . . . In
adopting the ordinance, the City Council was attempting to deal with
serious problems but the litigation which followed quickly revealed
further problems, including the lack of an assured federal database to
determine the status of individuals for housing purposes."*

The statement says the city does not agree with several of the judge's
preliminary rulings, but "the city does not believe that the current
legal environment is the best or the most cost effective manner to
address the problem of illegal aliens in Escondido."

Under the ordinance, a complaint not based on race or ethnicity could
have been filed by a resident, business or city official. The landlord
then would have been required to provide papers indicating the
immigration status of the tenants, which the city would have asked the
federal government to verify. If determined to be in the country
illegally, the tenants would have had to move within 10 business days.
Landlords who did not evict them within that period could have faced
suspension of their business licenses.

"We're very pleased that instead of spending a lot of time and money in
litigation, Escondido has agreed to follow the direction of the court,"
Mansfield said.

Bill Flores, a spokesman for El Grupo, a Latino civil-rights coalition,
was ecstatic.

*"Let me just say that whether the council decided to rescind this for
humanitarian reasons, financial reasons, for whatever reasons, we think
it is the right decision not to go down this road any further."*

City Attorney Jeffrey Epp said earlier this week that the lawyers the
city had hired to defend the lawsuit had not yet submitted any bills,
but he was sure their fees had topped $100,000.

The city said it plans to have proposals next month to address
overcrowding and other problems with rentals.

The city's statement concludes by saying the agreement does not prevent
Escondido from creating other laws dealing with similar issues. It also
says the ordinance and the litigation have no binding effect on any
other lawsuits or measures that may be pending elsewhere.

*But Omar Jadwat, an attorney with the American Civil Liberties Union,
said last night: "Other cities that have similar legislation should heed
the lesson of this case. The ordinances will not withstand challenge and
must be repealed."*

*In July, Hazleton, Pa., became the first city in the nation to pass
such a law, and it is being challenged by the ACLU and others.*

------------------------------------------------------------------------
J. Harry Jones: (760) 737-7579; *jharry.jones@uniontrib.com*
<http://www.signonsandiego.com/uniontrib/20061214/MAILTO:jharry.jones@uniontrib.com>

*Find this article at:*
http://www.signonsandiego.com/uniontrib/20061214/news_7n14escon.html

_______________________________________________
Public_announce mailing list
Public_announce@migrawatch.org
http://migrawatch.org/mailman/listinfo/public_announce_migrawatch.org