|
Dec 28
2011
|
|
When do you have to go to bed? Well, maybe you don’t have a bedtime, but do you have a curfew? Who is the boss of you anyway?
The topic of curfews comes up in my fair housing classes (notice the segue here – ahem) when I am speaking to the issue of reasonable v. unreasonable rules for children at apartment communities. I remind attendees that children are not a protected class (brats aren’t either, BTW), but that the adults, with whom children live, are protected from housing discrimination based on familial status (having a child under the age of 18). Then I cover the rules that are likely OK for a landlord to impose on children (in my mind, there are only 3). Often during that dialogue someone raises their hand and asks about curfews, as in “Isn’t it OK to have a curfew for children?”.
I usually respond by asking what time they require the Koreans to come in, or perhaps the Baptists, to make my point. Then I am assailed (it is not easy being a fair housing teacher) with comments. “The county has a curfew.” (Yep, it does – for public, not private property. Can the sheriff arrest you for having your child playing in the back yard late in the evening?) “Kids damage the property.” (Yep, sometimes they do. But your curfew means that you are fine with damage at the property as long as it is done by someone older than 18.) “Kids are at risk.” (Yep, they can be; call family services if you are concerned.) My position (which is not shared by all in the fair housing community, FYI) is that curfews could be considered a form of familial status discrimination.
What motivated me to write this particular blog is that I read an article on curfews by Chris Joyner with the Atlanta Journal Constitution. Joyner refers to Mike Males of the Center on Juvenile and Criminal Justice; Males is a leading researcher on teen curfews with his work being referenced often in both scholarly papers and the media. Now everyone does not agree with Mr. Males (I identify with that, yessir!) but here is what he has said “There’s pretty much no question that [curfew ordinances] aren’t effective in either reducing crime or preventing harm to young people.”
So now I can point that out when I am being beat upon for my anti-curfew stance. There is the aforesaid (love that word!) fair housing risk, and strong indications that curfews are not working anyway.
Any thoughts or input?
-
- +0
-
-
"ARTICLE V. YOUTH CURFEW*
*Editor's note--Ord. No. 74025, adopted July 25, 1991,
as amended, has been included herein at the discretion
of the editor as Art. V, §§ 21-121--21-125.
Sec. 21-121. Definitions.
[As used in this article the following words and terms shall have the meanings
respectively ascribed:]
(a) Minor shall mean any person under seventeen (17) years of age and over
nine (9) years of age.
(b) Parent shall mean a person who is the natural or adoptive parent of a
person. As used herein, "parent" shall also include a court appointed guardian
or other person eighteen (1
years of age or older, authorized by the parent, by a court order, or by the court appointed guardian to have the care and
custody of a person.
(c) Guardian shall mean any person to whom custody of a minor has been
given by a court order.
(d) Emergency shall include but not be limited to fire, natural disaster,
an automobile accident, or obtaining immediate medical care for
another person.
(e) Public place means any place to which the public or a substantial
group of the public has access and includes, but is not limited to,
streets, highways, and the common areas of schools, hospitals, apartment
houses, office building, transport facilities, and shops.
(Ord. No. 74025, § 1, 7-25-91; Ord. No. 76419, § 1, 9-3-92)
Sec. 21-122. Offenses.
(a) It shall be unlawful for a child to purposefully remain, walk, run,
stand, drive or ride about in or upon any public place in the City of
San Antonio between the hours of 10:30 p.m. and 6:00 a.m. on a Sunday,
Monday, Tuesday, Wednesday, or Thursday and between the hours of
12:00 a.m.(midnight) and 6:00 a.m. on Friday or Saturday.
(b) It shall be unlawful for a child to purposefully remain, walk, run,
stand, drive or ride about in or upon any public place in the City of
San Antonio between the hours of 9:00 a.m. and 2:30 p.m. on a Monday,
Tuesday, Wednesday, Thursday or Friday.
(c) It shall be unlawful for the parent having legal custody of a
minor to knowingly allow or permit the minor to be in violation
of the curfew imposed in sections 21-122(a) and 21-122(b).
(Ord. No. 74025, § 2, 7-25-91; Ord. No. 79327, § 1, 12-16-93;
Ord. No. 86567, § 1, 9-4-97)
-
- +0
-
-
-
- +0
-
-
not legally drive to and from the family's apartment. Unintended consequences indeed.
Jessica, I agree with what you said. Leaseholders are responsible for the actions of their occupants and guests. Have rules for everyone, enforce them, and evict those (with or without children) who do not abide by the rules.
-
- +0
-
-
Mine was to point out to those who were having issues to look at their city ordnance as a guide. You see the city ordinance is enforceable and as long as everyone abides by the same rules there should not be a problem. The times stated during the week are normally those times which children are supposed to be in school and those that are home schooled there are certain exceptions made. So, we all know there are those group of kids that play hooky from school and not even the parents have knowledge of it, so when there is school and there is a 16 year old (as an example) not there then it should be raising a red flag.
What I have found in my travels that there are those managers that do not know about the city ordinances and if they did, it would help them past some of their issues. So, it is not the landlord that has made up this ordinance and it is a city ordinance. A 16 year old should be in school during the weekday unless school is out, or they are home schooled.
But, whether we agree with them or not the local city ordinance is good to know as it can sure keep a lot of people out of trouble as well as give them some more ammunition in case there is a legal issue.
Even got a Home Owner Association to back down because they were trying to enforce something which the city ordinance said was fine. Then of course anything that I put out in my community I ran by the lawyer to ensure I was standing on good ground.
There were other things in the ordinance, I placed only one little portion as an example. I say again each city is different, so I cannot go to Atlanta and expect that their ordinance will be the same as San Antonio's.
-
- +0
-
-
Subscribe to this comment's feed
Problem with residents and guests hanging in the parking lot at night? Ask your courtesy officer to enforce local no loitering ordinances (if applicable - I'm basing this comment on my experience in Gwinnett County, GA) or your community's own policies on loitering.
Problem with vandalism? Add extra lighting to make dark areas bright and less prone to destructive activity.
I think it's also important to think about how it might effect leasing. From the outside a community curfew would probably be a turn-off to prospective residents, even though inside the residents like it and believe it's a good thing. I would definitely feel some sort of way (for lack of a better description) if I visited a property and the leasing consultant told me that if I moved in I wouldn't be allowed outside of my apartment at night. Personal liberties aside, it would make me think there was a crime problem.