September 1, 2015

Dear Members of the Gazette Editorial Board:

At your invitation, we would like to provide information about the City of Cedar Rapids program known
as Secure and Friendly Environments in Cedar Rapids (the SAFE-CR program). It is our understanding you
received a letter from the American Civil Liberties Union about an August 14 meeting between certain
ACLU representatives and city representatives and that you intend to publish an editorial opinion based
in part on that letter.
We offer these thoughts on the issues which were the subject of the August 14 meeting. First, as a
matter of background, SAFE-CR is a program which encompasses multiple city departments, each of
which has specific enforcement responsibilities. Those departments include our Police Department,
which enforces state and local criminal laws, and the Building Services Department, which enforces such
codes as housing, zoning and building codes. SAFE-CR was established by City Code Chapter 22A.
Section 22A.03 defines nuisance activity, some of which is typically regarded as criminal conduct (e.g.,
illegal drug related activity). Other sections govern the process by which a property may be designated a
nuisance property, the consequences of such a designation and how any action taken by SAFE-CR officials
may be appealed.
The primary goals of SAFE-CR are twofold: first, to discourage nuisance activity and second, to allocate
the costs associated with an excessive amount of city services sometimes needed to address nuisance
activity at any given property. SAFE-CR, however, does not replace CRPDs duties to serve and protect the
City from criminal activity. Nor is it at odds with the Citys concerns for victims of crime. To the
contrary, the City as a whole and SAFE-CR officials actively encourage residents to report nuisance
activity of every type. The City is aware of concerns that SAFE-CR will have the effect of discouraging
members of the public from contacting law enforcement in an emergency. First and foremost, we have
no information other than anecdotal reports by ACLU to suggest a single instance of someone choosing
not to call for assistance because of SAFE-CR. Based on our own outreach and information from the
ACLU, it appears the spread of misinformation may be causing unwarranted concerns. We acknowledge
that misinformation in turn may be discouraging individuals from calling for emergency assistance.
The City recognizes SAFE-CR operations may need improvement, of course. As such, we continuously
review the ordinance and our daily operations. We also actively seek input from outside the City. In
doing so, we take into account and carefully balance all interests affected by nuisance activity and SAFECR. Those interested parties include individual residents (both neighbors and those involved in nuisance
activity), property owners, victims advocates, housing advocates and landlord organizations, as well as
our taxpayers and the general public. We emphasize the Citys concern for crime victims by (1) removing
from the operation of SAFE-CR any calls for service made by or on behalf of a crime victim; (2) engaging
other groups interested in encouraging residents to report crime; (3) working with affected parties and
local helping agencies to facilitate services which could reduce or eliminate Nuisance Activity in
individuals homes; and (4) attempting to discover and correct any and all misapprehensions about

SAFE-CR so that victims of crime are not misled (intentionally or otherwise) into believing they will
somehow be punished for seeking emergency assistance.
(1) SAFE-CR has written a standard operating procedure, a copy of which is attached. In part, it states:
It is the policy of the City of Cedar Rapids and SAFE-CR staff that a Call for Service to a given
property will not be treated as Founded Nuisance Activity when a tenant or owner of that
property has been a victim of the criminal activity giving rise to the Call for Service.
The SOP requires a review of the facts and circumstances of any call for service when a tenant or
property owner is the victim of a crime. When the review suggests the tenant or property owner
tried to prevent or stop criminal activity, any calls for service related to that activity will not be
deemed founded. If a call is not founded, it cannot form the basis for declaring the property a
Nuisance Property and therefore could not lead to any bill for additional Nuisance Activity. Stated
otherwise, no one other than the taxpayers at large will bear the costs of such a call.
For purposes of declaring a property a Nuisance Property, Chapter 22A already excludes all calls for
service related to domestic violence. In addition, SAFE-CR staff has chosen to exclude all such calls
from being treated as founded calls for service in the first instance, even though section 22A.02
allows them to be considered founded. Staff is currently examining how to amend the ordinance to
automatically and entirely exclude all calls related to domestic violence (and to clarify an internal
reference to related state laws).
In addition, Chapter 22A provides that the decision by SAFE-CR officials to treat any call as a founded
call for Nuisance Activity is subject to review if it forms the basis for declaring a property a Nuisance
Property. This review starts with an administrative hearing but the declaration is also subject to
court review.
(2) SAFE-CR meets weekly with a SAFE-CR Focus Group to review our daily practices so they align with
the ordinance and the SOP. This Focus Group is made up of social service agencies who specifically
serve victims of domestic abuse and other crime; realtors; landlords; Iowa Legal Aid representatives;
and affordable housing entities. Current members include representatives from the Affordable
Housing Network, Waypoint Domestic Services, Four Oaks, and the Willis Dady Shelter. All members
share the goal of protecting victims against wrongful eviction or other penalties (intended or
otherwise) for seeking emergency assistance. We repeatedly reach out to crime victims, victim
advocates, social workers, and neighborhood associations, asking them to contact us with any
questions about or concerns with the SAFE-CR Program.
It is in this same spirit we met with ACLU August 14. While we agree with the ACLUs goals, we do
not agree that the proposed state legislation is the proper means for achieving them. The language
proposed would prohibit the City from treating any calls as nuisance activity if they are related to a
crime. For example, if a neighbor were to call 911 because she suspected a meth lab was being
operated or illegal drug activity was occurring next door, the proposed law would prevent the City
from treating the response call as a founded call for nuisance activity. Similarly, when someone calls
for police assistance because he is the victim of a noise disturbance coming from a neighboring
property, any penalty under SAFE-CR would be against the owner of the property where the noise
originates. However, the language urged by the ACLU (and certain landlords) would prohibit the City
from doing so because the call for assistance was placed by the victim of the noise disturbance.

(3) SAFE-CR staff often connects local helping agencies with residents who are involved in founded calls
for services. For example, after SAFE-CR staff noticed an increase of calls for service at a property
with a disabled tenant, they contacted Waypoint Services. Waypoint now provides services to that
tenant and is working to with SAFE-CR to ensure a safe environment in which to live. Moreover, the
police contacts with that tenant were not deemed founded calls under the SAFE-CR program.
Another form of outreach to affected parties is SAFE-CRs rental business training. In part, it is aimed
at educating landlords so they may properly exercise their rights under 22A without misinforming
tenants about its operations.
(4) The ACLU has provided the City (and presumably your paper) with stories of harm done by
ordinances such as Chapter 22A. Although we agree with certain information in those documents,
they also contain certain inaccuracies and improper and somewhat inflammatory characterizations of
the Citys work. The City has searched through SAFE-CR records extensively and has found nothing to
support the occurrences suggested in the ACLUs accounts. Because these reports are public record,
we also invite the ACLU to review them as well. Unfortunately, the City has no other means of
determining the source of the ACLUs stories or to address misperceptions those stories reveal. We
hope the ACLU and its representatives will work with the City and our Focus Group to identify anyone
who is making misstatements about how SAFE-CR operates so the misperceptions may be corrected
and crime victims will not be discouraged from calling for assistance. In the meantime, the City
encourages anyone concerned with crime victims to join the City in dispelling myths that may exist
among property owners. Already, SAFE-CR has declined a request by one landlord to be advised of
calls for service to her property which were related to domestic violence. This decision was made so
as not to increase the chances the landlord might take adverse actions against the tenant for seeking
assistance as a crime victim. The City is very interested in better means to prevent landlords from
discouraging crime victims from contacting police or otherwise spreading misinformation about
SAFE-CR.
Both Chapter 22A and SAFE-CRs operations have been designed and are being implemented to achieve
SAFE-CRs primary objectives. The City council believes strongly in the tradition of local control over
matters of public health, safety and welfare. It also believes in fairly allocating excessive costs of
government services to those who should bear them. It is the councils position that those who own
residential property have the most direct control over the use of that property, and those who receive
rent in exchange for the use of their property are better situated than the taxpayers as a whole to bear
the costs of excessive calls for service.
Ultimately, the City Council is committed to providing every resident a safe and clean neighborhood, with
limited nuisance activity, so they may enjoy their own properties. As stated above, this requires a careful
balancing of interests. We welcome all information, perspectives and suggestions which have the
potential to improve SAFE-CR without sacrificing the Councils goals.
Thank you for the opportunity to state the Citys position on these matters.