OKLAHOMA CITY — Evictions would increase under legislation approved by the Oklahoma House of Representatives on Thursday, opponents of the measure claimed.
House Bill 2394, by Rep. Logan Phillips, R-Mounds, would change a section of law that allows landlords to initiate eviction proceedings for “any drug-related criminal activity on or near the premises by the tenant or by any member of the tenant’s household or any guest or other person under the tenant’s control” by deleting the phrase “on or near the premises.”
The matter is of particular interest to Tulsa, which has one of the highest eviction rates in the country. Oklahoma City also has a relatively high eviction rate.
Supporters of HB 2394 said it would protect property rights and property owners.
People are also reading…
“What this comes down to fundamentally is what you believe about property rights,” said Rep. Trey Caldwell, R-Lawton. “Do people who have put up an investment have the right to protect that investment? (Democrats) have said it’s unfair. There’s nothing unfair about it. If you commit a criminal act, it begins a process.”
But opponents said the new language is too broad and opens the possibility of eviction — or at least eviction proceedings — because a family member across town, in another state or “on an acid trip on Mars” violates a drug law.
“I have enough experience with this to know that landlords can be petty enough to retaliate against a tenant” who complains,” said Rep. Forrest Bennett, D-Oklahoma City.
Phillips noted that his bill would not change the eviction process and said he doesn’t believe it would increase the number of evictions.
He dismissed Bennett’s and others concerns as far-fetched and said the criminal activity would have to constitute a “danger to the premises.”
Several people said the law is unclear as to whether the “danger to the premises” wording applies to the clause dealing with “criminal drug activity.”
Rep. Regina Goodwin, D-Tulsa, chided Phillips and Caldwell for not taking Democrat concerns seriously.
“Everything doesn’t have to be ‘Oh, those liberal Democrats! They just want people smoking weed and destroying property,’” she said. “That’s not it. … We’re just asking to be considerate of the lives that are going to be impacted by little bitty words like ‘and’ and ‘or’ and ‘may’ and ‘shall.’ ”
HB 2394 passed 75-22 on a party-line vote, one of very few such outcomes during a grueling session in which the House worked through 69 bills.
Among the other measures passed Thursday:
• HB 2641, by Rep. Rhonda Baker, R-Yukon, would establish a task force for evaluating the state’s high school graduation requirements. The expectation is that the task force’s recommendations would be incorporated into individual student “career paths.”
• HB 2669, by Rep. Kevin Wallace, R-Wellston, would establish an apportionment evaluation commission to look at money earmarked for specific purposes without going through the regular appropriations process.
Wallace, the House Appropriations and Budget Committee chair, has made it clear that he wants to reduce the share of revenue directly apportioned.
Most direct apportionments go to education and highways.
• HB 1014, by Rep. Carol Bush, R-Tulsa, would set rules for the collection of Rapid DNA samples, which would be used by law enforcement agencies for identification purposes.
Rapid DNA is a basic DNA test that produces results in less than two hours. Those results can be entered into a national database for matches against DNA connected to serious crimes.
Opponents of the bill, and Rapid DNA in general, view it as an invasion of privacy.
Bush and Rep. Ross Ford, R-Broken Arrow, a former Tulsa police officer, argued that the test results are immediately destroyed if no match is found and are more likely to clear suspects than implicate them.
