Thread: Fremont may change city ban on renting to illegal immigrants

Fremont may change city ban on renting to illegal immigrants


Print Email
4 hours ago • By the Fremont Tribune(7) Comments
FREMONT — The Fremont City Council is scheduled to consider removing portions of the city's ban on renting housing to people who aren't in the U.S. legally.


The proposal would remove sections requiring occupancy permits and enforcement of other housing provisions, the Fremont Tribune said. It's scheduled for a first reading and is the last item on the council's agenda for Tuesday. Three readings and affirmative votes are required for it to take effect.


City Attorney Paul Payne said in a report to the council that council member Todd Hoppe asked him to prepare the proposal. Reached Monday morning, Hoppe declined to comment.


Fremont voters approved a measure in 2010 that bans hiring or renting to people who can't prove they are in the country legally, but the housing portion of the law has remained on hold while legal challenges to the rules are resolved.


Mayor Scott Getzschman said the council is concerned about the potential costs of the housing restrictions.


Getzschman said city officials are worried that Fremont may lose its federal community development block grants if federal officials decide the city's housing restrictions violate the federal fair housing act.


And the ordinance has hurt the city's reputation and its ability to attract business because Fremont has been perceived as discriminatory, Getzschman said.


Fremont taxpayers have also been paying higher property taxes because of the ordinance to support the cost of enforcing it and build up a fund for any lawsuits.


"The costs are real, and we have to balance our budget," Getzschman said.


Last year, a U.S. district judge ruled last year that parts of the ordinance that would deny city-issued housing permits to people who are in the country illegally were discriminatory and interfere with federal law.


In June a three-member panel of the 8th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals reversed the ruling and vacated the lower court's injunction against that part of the ordinance. Judge James Loken wrote that the plaintiffs failed to show the law was intended to discriminate against Latinos or that it intruded on federal law.


The Appeals Court rejected a petition Oct. 18 for the full court to rehear the case.


Two other federal appeals courts have ruled against the communities of Farmers Branch, Texas, and Hazelton, Pa., which have similar laws targeting landlords and employers to dissuade them from renting to or hiring people who are living in the country illegally.

http://journalstar.com/news/state-an...5e09a4bfd.html

Council holds first reading to repeal housing portions of ordinance

ctober 29, 2013 10:18 pm • By Chris Zavadil/Fremont Tribune(21) Comments
The Fremont City Council held first reading Tuesday of an ordinance that seeks to remove sections of an ordinance that makes it illegal to harbor illegal aliens, require renters to acquire occupancy licenses and enforces the harboring provisions.


The ordinance repealing the housing portions of Ordinance 5165 will undergo two more readings on Nov. 12 and Nov. 26.


With the housing portions working their way through court challenges – recently being upheld by the U.S. 8th Circuit Court of Appeals – the city has not yet enacted them.


Provisions of the ordinance requiring the use of E-Verify have been implemented.


Twenty-two people addressed the council after the repeal’s introduction, with 17 of them opposed to the repeal.


“You already know what the peoples’ wish was because they told you in a voting booth,” said Bob Warner of Fremont.


Warner was the city council member who introduced the illegal immigrant ordinance in May 2008, only to see it fail on a 4-4 vote before being passed in a June 2010 referendum initiated by a petition drive.


“I’m very disgusted to hear that the city council is even thinking of repealing this ordinance that we worked very hard for,” said Jon Wiegert, who helped circulate the petition that brought Ordinance 5165 to the 2009 election.


“You’re totally going against the will of the people and the decisions of the courts,” Wiegert said. “To think that you would use one of the best lawyers in the nation to represent us, and he’s won every court decision, and then you turn around and you stick it to him, and the citizens of Fremont who voted for this, it’s despicable.”


Wiegert said any council member who voted for the repeal would face a recall effort.


State Sen. Charlie Janssen, a candidate for governor, was on the city council in 2008 when Warner introduced the ordinance.


“The voters of the ordinance (in 2009) overwhelmingly approved this ordinance 57 percent to 43 percent,” he pointed out.


“This wasn’t something that was just put in there by one faction or one part of the city, this was overall,” he said.


“It’s not about illegal immigration, it’s about listening to your constituents,” Janssen said.


“If you want to do something,” he said, “throw it back to a vote of the people, see where they’re at.”


Jerry Hart, who helped circulate the initiative petition in 2009, said council members Todd Hoppe, who owns rental properties, and Jennifer Bixby, a Realtor, should abstain from voting on the ordinance due to conflict of interest.


Scott Meister, president of the Greater Fremont Development Council, said Ordinance 5165 has painted Fremont with a difficult-to-overcome image of prejudice and intolerance, and supported the repeal move.


“Contacts at the Nebraska Department of Economic Development and Greater Omaha Economic Development Partnership have shared that the negative perception of our immigration ordinance negatively impacts our ability to market the community to prospective businesses, and that removal of the housing portion of the ordinance would make Fremont much more appealing to its prospects,” Meister said.


Ron Tillery, executive director of the Fremont Area Chamber of Commerce, said the Chamber board issued a position statement in support of repealing the housing portions, “mainly because we think that there are provisions within this ordinance that simply don’t achieve the end in a practical way that the ordinance is intended to achieve.”


The Chamber, he said, supports the E-Verify portion and has worked closely with its members to implement it, “and we think that over time that portion of the ordinance actually addresses the concerns that are related to the housing component.”


Cecilia Harry, who moved to Fremont two months ago when she became executive director of GFDC, said Ordinance 5165 was the “one ugly component” of Fremont she and her husband saw before moving to the community.


“Fremont appeared perfect, inviting and everything we wanted, but one obvious flaw made us question the rest of the package,” she said.


“How many talented young people with a lifetime of earnings ahead of them take one look at Fremont, perceive it to be a prejudiced exclusive community, and decide to look elsewhere?” she said.


“We have to do what’s right for Fremont, we have to do what’s right for growing this town, continuing to build this town. … You guys are being mindful of how to grow Fremont,” Jennifer Greunke of Fremont told the council.


City officials, after the meeting, told the Tribune they may not be opposed to taking the matter to another public vote, but that option has not yet been discussed.


Mayor Scott Getzschman said introducing the repeal on Tuesday was intended to allow council members to start hearing what the public has to say, and then consider how to proceed.

http://fremonttribune.com/news/local...b062d6888.html

Fair housing expert says HUD could threaten funding

October 16, 2013 7:30 am • By Chris Zavadil/Fremont Tribune(17) Comments
Fremont could lose out on federal funding in the future – and possibly get sued to return previously received grants – because of what one fair housing expert said are deficiencies in Fremont’s responsibility to further affirmative housing.


Tim Butz, assistant director of the Fair Housing Center of Iowa and Nebraska, told a city council study session on Tuesday that the U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development has concerns about Fremont’s illegal immigrant ordinance, and other factors involved in the city’s responsibility under HUD criteria to further affirmative housing actions.


Provisions of Ordinance 5165 requiring the use of E-Verify have been implemented, but portions requiring renters to obtain occupancy licenses are being delayed while challenges work through the courts. Currently the ordinance is at the Eighth U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals awaiting a decision on whether the entire bench will hear the case after a three-judge panel earlier upheld it.


Tina Engelbart, deputy director of the Northeast Nebraska Economic Development District, said the city has received approximately $7.1 million in Community Development Block Grants in the past 15 years to address comprehensive revitalization, housing, downtown revitalization and economic development. Federal CDBG funds are distributed to the city through the state.


HUD, while auditing the state’s administration of federal money, completed an analysis of impediments to fair housing, “and it turned up some problems,” Butz said.


“The state failed to identify Ordinance 5165 as an impediment,” he said. “They didn’t say the law was illegal, that it violated anybody’s rights, but it did say that the state had failed to take into consideration the chilling affect that that has, and that the state had failed to take any action to counteract whatever chilling affect is had or is created by the ordinance.”


He referred to two letters written from HUD officials to the Nebraska Department of Economic Development, critical of the state for, in part, not including the ordinance as an impediment, but also recommending 11 specific actions that city should take.


“The most important of that was they wanted a new analysis of impediments to incorporate the effects of 5165,” Butz said, adding officials “from the highest levels of HUD” talk to him regularly about the ordinance.


“You do have a big target on you, let’s be honest,” he said. “They’re not going to forget you. They’re not going to let this ordinance go by without it being addressed by the city. They’re not telling you that you have to repeal it, although I think repealing it would satisfy their concerns. … They’re not saying at this point that the ordinance places you outside compliance with your duty to affirmatively further fair housing.


“HUD has the power to stop your CDBG funding, they can tell the state to turn the tap off, and you won’t get another dime,” he pointed out. “They’re not ready to do that yet, and I’m not here to speak for HUD, I am not HUD. … I’m here to tell you that you need to act. You cannot ignore this thing. You’ve got to do something to counteract the effect of the ordinance on the Hispanic population of this city.”


Butz, whose nonprofit agency was created under a HUD grant as part of Family Housing Advisory Services Inc. in 1994, said the Fair Housing Center carries credibility with HUD.


Butz said he looked at 18 Fremont grant applications, “and I could make an argument to you that this city engaged in false certification on a number of those applications. You told DED you had … an anti-discrimination ordinance with a means to enforce it, and you didn’t.”


He claimed Fremont made other false certifications, including indicating the city would conduct housing studies, education and other activities the state has no record of.


He said Fremont and Dodge County were “frozen out of the Metropolitan Area Planning Authority Vision 2050 planning process” because (MAPA) “feared they would lose their grant from HUD because you had litigation going on involving fair housing issues.”


Butz maintained that HUD’s concerns were not prompted by the ordinance alone.


“These are things you should have been doing anyway. This isn’t punitive because of the ordinance. What happens is that you’ve become nationally prominent (because of the ordinance),” he said.


Mayor Scott Getzschman pointed to a fair housing study in 2011, but Butz said the study, conducted by Hanna:Keelan Associates PC of Lincoln, was “cheap” and “defective.”


“I think something that would impress HUD with your commitment to affirmatively furthering fair housing would be to go back and get that analysis of impediments document revised to incorporate the concerns that they address,” he said.


Engelbart disputed some of Butz’s claims, saying Fremont and Dodge County are not part of MAPA’s territory, but are part of NENEDD’s regional plan, and recounting that the city’s lack of a fair housing ordinance was “a misunderstanding,” quickly rectified when city staff realized a resolution was in place but not an ordinance.


Engelbart said all of the applications, which her agency prepared, met DED criteria, and nobody, including DED, ever contacted her agency regarding Fremont’s applications being falsified or out of compliance.


Nor has the city been contacted, City Administrator Dale Shotkoski added.


But it appears, Shotkoski said, “that HUD is putting pressure on the state to step up its review of what we’re doing.”


Shotkoski said the city wants to proactively work with agencies like the Fair Housing Center and Northeast Nebraska Economic Development District to meet HUD’s criteria – a unique situation, he said, because other cities using HUD funds don’t also have to work a similar illegal immigrant ordinance into their formula, leaving the cost of compliance a mystery at this point.


Bobbi Luca, president of Cornerstone Associates, an Omaha firm interested in providing affordable housing for seniors in Fremont, said her department relies heavily on federal funding.


“My concern with regard to the ordinance – and I’m not agreeing or disagreeing with the ordinance – is the fact that it could negatively impact any type of future development that comes in that relies on any form of federal funding,” she said.


Steve Bullock, vice president of Midland University, said the ordinance already has made it harder to recruit Hispanic students, including legal citizens, and had a negative impact on donors.


Fremont resident Maggie Zarate, a Realtor who said she represents the Hispanic community, said the ordinance is negatively affecting the entire community, not just Hispanics.


“If there’s anything that you guys can do, if you can repeal that ordinance because that has just brought fear to the city,” Zarate said.

http://fremonttribune.com/news/local...4ab325712.html

December 31, 2013 9:00 am • By Chris Zavadil/Fremont Tribune

The last half of 2013 was an action-packed time for Fremont’s illegal immigrant ordinance, and 2014 promises to be even more eventful as the city gears up for a Feb. 11 special election to decide whether to repeal the ordinance’s housing provisions.

A three-judge panel of the U.S. Eighth Circuit Court of Appeals, in a split decision on June 28, reversed a U.S. District Court ruling that certain rental provisions were preempted by the Immigration and Nationality Act and violated the Fair Housing Act.

Lawyers for the Mexican American Legal Defense and Educational Fund and the American Civil Liberties Union asked the court to rehear the case “en banc,” but the appeals court refused. That decision, issued on Oct. 17, left plaintiffs with a 90-day window in which to petition the U.S. Supreme Court to hear the case. As of this week, no petition had been filed.

If the ACLU and MALDEF make the request, and the high court agrees to hear it, it could be the summer of 2015 before an opinion is issued, City Attorney Paul Payne explained.

Two other communities with similar ordinances – Hazleton, Pa., and Farmers Branch, Texas – are asking the Supreme Court to take up their ordinances, which federal district courts in those regions declared unconstitutional.

Attorney Kris Kobach, who wrote Fremont’s ordinance, is also representing those communities.

Meanwhile, an official with the Fair Housing Center of Iowa and Nebraska told a city council study session on Oct. 15 that the U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development has concerns about the ordinance.

Tim Butz, assistant director of the Fair Housing Center and a former ACLU official, said Fremont could lose out on future federal funding, and possibly get sued to return previously received grants.

Fremont has received approximately $7.1 million in Community Development Block Grants in the past 15 years, addressing comprehensive revitalization, housing, downtown revitalization and economic development. Federal CDBG funds are distributed to the city through the state.

Butz referred to two letters from HUD officials to the Nebraska Department of Economic Development, critical of the state for, in part, not including the ordinance as an impediment to fair housing choice, and recommending specific actions that the city should take.

“You do have a big target on you, let’s be honest,” Butz said. “They’re not going to forget you. They’re not going to let this ordinance go by without it being addressed by the city. They’re not telling you that you have to repeal it, although I think repealing it would satisfy their concerns. … They’re not saying at this point that the ordinance places you outside compliance with your duty to affirmatively further fair housing.”

City council member Todd Hoppe, two weeks later, introduced an amendment that would do away with the housing portions.

The first reading drew strong reaction from the public; 22 people addressed the council with 17 of them opposed to the repeal.

“You already know what the peoples’ wish was because they told you in a voting booth,” said Bob Warner of Fremont. Warner was the council member who in May 2008 introduced the ordinance, only to see it fail on a 4-4 vote before being passed in a June 2010 referendum initiated by a petition drive.

Jon Wiegert, who helped circulate the petition in 2009, said any council member who voted for the repeal would face a recall effort.

On the other hand, Scott Meister, president of the Greater Fremont Development Council, said Ordinance 5165 has painted Fremont with a difficult-to-overcome image of prejudice and intolerance.

At issue, Hoppe later told the Tribune, is whether the residents of Fremont want to risk the possibility of spending millions of dollars defending the ordinance.

“I’m not against the ordinance itself, I am against foolishly throwing money away if, in fact, it is foolish, and I believe it is because (Ordinance 5165) is ineffective,” Hoppe said.

City staff intended to begin enforcement on Nov. 18 of the housing provisions, requiring renters to pay $5 and acquire occupancy licenses at the Fremont Police Department, but that effort and Hoppe’s proposed amendment were both put on hold the night of Nov. 12 when the council voted to hold a special election, letting the public decide whether to repeal the housing portions.

http://fremonttribune.com/news/local...56f37f346.html

How the people of Fremont, Nebraska took on their government that wouldn’t enforce the law



4:41 PM 01/17/2014
Joe Herring
The Daily Caller

Abuses of the rule of law are fast becoming the hallmark of America’s new golden age of government. One egregious example is unfolding in the city of Fremont, in northeast Nebraska.

In summer of 2008, a member of the city council attempted to bring the force of law to what was already a moral imperative: proposing an ordinance requiring employers and landlords in the city to refrain from knowingly renting to, or employing illegal immigrants. The proposal failed in the city council, with the mayor casting the deciding vote.

The costs of illegal immigration have been studied, published and proven repeatedly, and are not in dispute among credible sources. The impact on our hospitals, schools, law enforcement, and social programs is undeniable.

Also undeniable, is the fact that illegal immigrants are willing to accept poor working conditions, substandard housing and markedly lower wages in exchange for discretion and silence regarding their immigration status – a willingness that unethical employers and landlords are eager to exploit.

By September of 2008, Fremont residents had seen enough. They organized a petition drive to place the proposed ordinance before the people in a special election. The city sued to stop them, and lost. Despite apocalyptic rhetoric about the city going bankrupt defending the inevitable legal challenges, the election was held in 2010 and the ordinance passed by an overwhelming margin.

The council raised taxes in retaliation, casting the money-grab as necessary to offset expected legal costs. This, despite the fact that the author of the ordinance, top constitutional attorney and Kansas Secretary of State Kris Kobach, had already agreed to defend the city pro bono. The tantrum by the Council and their allies featured charges of racism, spiced with an ugly undercurrent of intimidation.

To date the new tax has raised nearly two million dollars, and Fremont has spent only $50,000 from that kitty. This payment was by the Council’s choice, as they insisted Mr. Kobach was obligated contractually to accept the money as a retainer fee, despite his numerous refusals.

The Fremont law has been assailed from all fronts, by the ACLU, the Southern Poverty Law Center, plus a laundry list of “grassroots” groups largely funded under pet initiatives of the “open borders” crowd. Yet through it all, the law has maintained unwavering support from the residents of Fremont.

After nearly five years of battle, the ordinance was declared to be constitutional and non-discriminatory by no less than the prestigious 8th Circuit Court of Appeals, the 2nd highest court in the land. At long last, Fremont is free to begin enforcement.

Well, maybe not. The city council still doesn’t like the law, and tried to quietly repeal it with a simple vote of the council itself. Why?

The honest answer appears to be greed. Many of those who oppose this ordinance (including some folks on the City Council) have staggering conflicts of interest where this issue is concerned.

One Councilman in particular, was publicly accused of packing his own rental properties with multiple illegal immigrant families – a charge he did not deny. Unsurprisingly, this particular councilman is leading the repeal effort. Honestly, you can’t make this stuff up.

http://dailycaller.com/2014/01/17/ho...force-the-law/

37 minutes ago
(0) Comments

From day one Fremont’s immigration ordinance has faced major opposition from our mayor, Scott Getzschman. He was a city councilman in 2008 when the ordinance was introduced and was openly opposed to having a discussion on this important issue facing our community. He was quoted in the Omaha World Herald on July 29, 2008, as justifying his “no” vote to the ordinance because “many constituents asked me to put an end to the proposal and the heightened tensions it brought to Fremont.”

He was instrumental in forcing a vote long before his constituents were even heard. Thus the need for the petition and special election which resulted in a widespread approval for the immigration ordinance.

When our mayor was asked at the mayoral forum in 2010 whether he would uphold the ruling of the ordinance, he answered yes and never expressed any concern about the housing portion of the ordinance. He has always banked on the fact that the immigration ordinance would not hold up in court. When the ordinance was upheld and was proven to be non-discriminatory, he once again has been instrumental in getting the housing portion repealed. Citizens need to know that he also is on the Chamber of Commerce board and has voted against the will of the people. He has passed his disdain on to Cecilia Harry who is in charge of bringing new businesses to Fremont. All of our “city leaders” are working against the will of the people and our mayor is leading the group.

The United States Chamber of Commerce also fights against anyone who wants our immigration laws enforced. Who is paying for this survey that is spreading lies about the ordinance?

I thought we lived in a community where our mayor would uphold our vote. His comment in 2008 about listening to his constituents was not truthful, his answer at the mayor’s forum was not truthful and his desire to preserve our vote and be a public servant is not truthful. Please vote no to the repeal and no to our city leaders.

Jerry A. Hart

Fremont

http://fremonttribune.com/news/opini...ab24010c5.html

January 17, 2014 7:00 am • By Chris Zavadil/Fremont Tribune
(0) Comments

Plaintiffs against Fremont’s illegal immigrant ordinance have received an extension to petition the U.S. Supreme Court to review the case.

Attorneys for the Mexican American Legal Defense and Educational Fund requested on Dec. 30 an extension to file a petition for a “writ of certiorari,” a document asking the Supreme Court to review the decision of a lower court

Supreme Court Justice Sam Alito has granted the request, giving plaintiffs until Feb. 26 to petition the high court.

A three-judge panel of the Eighth Circuit U.S. Court of Appeals heard the case in December 2012, and on June 28, 2013, reversed a U.S. District Court ruling that certain rental provisions of Ordinance 5165 were preempted by the Immigration and Nationality Act and violated the Fair Housing Act, and ordered the District Court to dismiss the case.

Plaintiffs asked to rehear the case “en banc,” meaning the entire Appeals Court bench would hear it, but that request was denied.

The appeals court issued its mandate on Oct. 24, and plaintiffs were given 90 days to petition the Supreme Court.

The extension means that a potential petition to the Supreme Court could happen after a Feb. 11 special election in which Fremont voters will decide whether to repeal the housing provisions of the ordinance.

The Supreme Court typically receives approximately 10,000 petitions every year, but takes only about 75 to 80 of them.

Two other communities with ordinances similar to Fremont’s -- Hazleton, Pa., and Farmers Branch, Texas -- already are asking the Supreme Court to take up their ordinances.

Attorney Kris Kobach, who wrote Fremont’s ordinance and has been defending it in court, is also representing those communities.

At Hazleton and Farmers Branch, federal district courts in those regions declared the ordinances unconstitutional, contrasting with the Eighth Circuit’s ruling on Fremont’s ordinance.

The city already has implemented portions of the ordinance requiring businesses to use the federal E-Verify system, but held off on implementing housing related portions pending the court’s action.

The housing portions essentially require renters to acquire an occupancy license from the Fremont Police Department and pay a $5 fee.

City staff in November began the process of implementing the housing provisions, making occupancy licenses available at the police station with plans to begin enforcement on Nov. 18, but the city council on Nov. 12 called for the Feb. 11 special election, and further suspended implementation until 30 days after the election results are certified.

http://fremonttribune.com/news/local...8582a58a5.html