http://www.oklahoman.com/article/5441005&headline=Under%20proposal%2C%20Oklahoma%20City%20c ould%20go%20after%20property%20owners%20to%20preve nt%20prostitution%2C%20drugs%20on%20premises


The Oklahoma City Council on Tuesday indicated it was ready to give the police department expanded authority to battle prostitution and drugs.

A proposal would extend the definition of "disorderly house" to include surrounding property owned or controlled by the business or homeowner.
The new update would add prostitution and drugs to the specific activities such as violent crimes, public intoxication and discharging firearms that already constitute a nuisance outdoors.


If this is approved we just have to wait to see how long it is before the state legislature tries to get involved to stop it.

Maybe I'm missing something, but what was the necessity of this adjustment/clarification to the ordinance. The city already interprets the ordinance to mean the exterior property and has exercised that on more than one occasion.

Maybe I'm missing something, but what was the necessity of this adjustment/clarification to the ordinance. The city already interprets the ordinance to mean the exterior property and has exercised that on more than one occasion.

I'm not an expert on this but it appears that what they are saying is that prostitution and drugs were not specifically included before and will be if this is approved. That doesn't mean they haven't used that kind of reasoning before, just that it was not codified.

I'm not an expert on this but it appears that what they are saying is that prostitution and drugs were not specifically included before and will be if this is approved. That doesn't mean they haven't used that kind of reasoning before, just that it was not codified.

No, they were in the original statute.

You can read the statute here..... https://www.municode.com/library/ok/oklahoma_city/codes/code_of_ordinances?nodeId=OKMUCO2010_CH30MIPROF_AR TVCRAGPUPEOR_DIV2DIHO

No, they were in the original statute.

You can read the statute here..... https://www.municode.com/library/ok/oklahoma_city/codes/code_of_ordinances?nodeId=OKMUCO2010_CH30MIPROF_AR TVCRAGPUPEOR_DIV2DIHO

That statue only mentions


any house, building, structure, tent, vehicle, mobile home, or recreational vehicle shall knowingly use, lease, sublease or otherwise permit the use of same for the purpose of keeping therein any disorderly house; and knowing or ascertaining that such house, building, structure, tent, vehicle, mobile home, or recreational vehicle is so occupied as a disorderly house, no person, partnership or corporation shall continue to grant permission to so use such premises as a disorderly house.

not


to include surrounding property owned or controlled by the business or homeowner

Perhaps that is the difference.

I agree I think the idea was to clarify the exterior. But it didn't exclude it previously and the city has been successful as defining the ordinance as including the exterior. They've forced a handful of commercial properties to put up signage, additional outdoor lighting, security cameras and even forced at least two to hire security officers.

Its not a huge deal. I just think politicians like busy work to make it seem like they are doing something - even if the result over time is so many laws written in such detail that it becomes overwhelming (like our tax laws).

... politicians like busy work to make it seem like they are doing something ...

You're not wrong.