Editorial: City of Hesperia needs to obey a court injunction on group homes

The city of Hesperia, in its zeal to prevent crime in rental properties, enacted two housing ordinances of dubious constitutionality. The crime-free rental housing ordinance, which went into effect this year, compels landlords to run criminal background checks on all prospective tenants and to start eviction proceedings against any tenant arrested on or near the premises — even if the legal matter has not been resolved or charges were never brought. That’s ludicrous; an arrest is not a finding of guilt.

The second ordinance, adopted in 2007, forbids two or more people who are on probation from living in the same house. That’s unacceptable as well. No city should adopt a blanket discriminatory rule against people who have served their time in jail or prison and are now seeking to reenter society.

The American Civil Liberties Union filed suit and then requested a preliminary injunction to stop the city’s enforcement of the laws against its clients, which include the nonprofit Victor Valley Family Resource Center, pending the outcome of the lawsuit. The center offers housing and services to people on probation who are at risk of becoming homeless; it rents three properties in Hesperia. But even after U.S. District Judge Andre Birotte Jr. granted the injunction in July, the ACLU says, the city continued placing phone calls and sending multiple letters to the owners of the properties demanding tens of thousands of dollars in fees from citations and enforcement costs by the end of this month in connection with the enjoined laws. The city also pressed the landlords to say whether they were evicting the tenants — which landlords had initiated but halted after the injunction was issued.

The city brazenly admitted in court papers that code enforcement officials had, indeed, communicated with the landlords of the properties to see how the eviction process was going at each property. (Note to the city: See paragraph above. You’re not supposed to be moving forward on this.) Among the issues the city said needed clarification: Did the injunction mean the code enforcement personnel couldn’t enforce citations handed out prior to the filing of the injunction?

That’s right. It does. And Birotte said as much: “Clearly, enforcement of past citations for violations of the Ordinances is action to enforce the Ordinances.”

The court injunction is straightforward — and the city should follow it. City officials may not contact the landlords about paying fees for citations related to these ordinances. They must stop all enforcement of these ordinances against the plaintiffs.

Or the city could go one step further and settle the lawsuit, striking these unconstitutional and discriminatory laws off its books altogether. That would be the fair thing to do.

Follow the Opinion section on Twitter @latimesopinion and Facebook