Annapolis Capital Punishment

There is still time to respond to our current poll about banning in public housing. Please vote! Meanwhile, CP has twice asked the mayoral candidates about the subject. McFall responded quickly, followed by Renaut who said as a lawyer and potential party to such a suit, he could not comment. After further prodding, Renaut agreed to write a comment and then Greg Stiverson, a candidate in Ward Three which holds much of the city's HACA properties, wrote in. Chris Fox has said he will send a comment in soon and we are still waiting. The other candidates??? Well...I guess they're busy....

Trudy McFall-Democrat for Mayor:
I support banning in our Annapolis public housing communities. Since strengthening the implementation of the banning policy, there has been a significant reduction in crime on HACA property, to the benefit of the majority of residents and surrounding neighborhoods. Banning is a common practice in many low income rental family communities in the country, not just in HACA properties in Annapolis. In my capacity as Chairman of Homes for America, we have implemented banning policies when necessary at many of the urban family rental communities we own in the mid-Atlantic states. Banning has produced excellent results for these communities, which are much appreciated by the families who live there and want a safe, peaceful home to raise their families.

Any system of banning needs, of course, to have clear criteria and procedures for being placed on the list and for being removed from a banning list and needs to be uniformly and fairly administered. Properly administered, banning is clearly one of several useful tools for making communities safe and peaceful places for law abiding residents and visitors.


Greg Stiverson-Republican for Ward Six Alderman

Regarding the ACLU lawsuit against HACA and the Annapolis City Police:
1. Every U.S. citizen has the fundamental right of peaceable assembly (Bill of Rights, I).
2. Every U.S. Citizen is presumed innocent until proven guilty.
3. When a person is convicted of a crime and has "done his time," his/her debt to society has been paid.
These three principles, it seems to me, provide sufficient basis for the ACLU to challenge the current banning regulations covering Annapolis Public Housing. I assume such banning practices have been tested before in federal courts and have been upheld. That does not necessarily mean that the specific banning guidelines followed by HACA and enforced by the Annapolis Police will pass muster. That's for the courts to decide and that's the purpose of the lawsuit. To speculate on the outcome of the lawsuit or to prejudge the verdict is pointless, since what I feel, one way or the other, is irrelevant.

As a matter of principle, I believe citizens' right are paramount and equal. The sanctity of those rights should not be compromised because of the place where a person lives, how much rent they pay, or who their landlord is--HACA or a private property owner.

People also have a right to live in a safe community. Banning persons accused or convicted of certain crimes may make a community safer, but banning is not the only solution to achieving that goal. Banning was in place in Annapolis public housing before the recent dramatic drop in serious crime in the city. That drop can be attributed, I believe, to good, aggressive police work under the direction of Police Chief Pristoop. Criminals need to know that there is no safe haven in Annapolis, regardless of where they may live.

If the courts uphold HACA's banning policies and the police consider banning a useful tool in creating safe communities, then I could, reluctantly, support the practice. However, I believe the mayor and city council should monitor the use of banning carefully. The residents of public housing are not inmates on a federal reservation--they are citizens of Annapolis communities who should be treated the same as every other citizen in the city. One of the glories of our country is that the poor have the same fundamental rights as the rich. We tend too often to forget that in this wealthy city of ours.

Gilbert Renaut-Democrat for Mayor
In 2003, the Supreme Court decided a case on trespassing bans in public housing in Richmond in which the ACLU participated as amicus curiae [a friend of the court]. The Court rejected unanimously the argument that such a ban was inherently unconstitutional. However, the decision leaves room for argument about how much room there is for such bans, and I presume that the ACLU intends to argue that HACA's policy paints with too broad a brush. In my opinion that argument presents a very good opportunity for mediation, and I would hope the parties would give it a try before their positions are fully solidified and polarized. As mayor, that is certainly what I would urge on the parties.


Please send comments, subscribe, share with your friends, and support our sponsors.