TENANTS AT FORT HILL: YOU CAN'T LEAVE YOUR ADULT CHILDREN IN YOUR APARTMENTS ALONE

TENANTS AT FORT HILL ELDER HOUSING CAME TO ME, STATING THAT THEY DID NOT LIKE THE CLAUSE IN THEIR LEASES, IT STATES THAT YOU CAN NOT LEAVE A VISITOR IN YOUR APARTMENT WHEN YOU LEAVE. THEY ASKED FOR A TENANT ASSOCIATION MEETING.

THIS ALL STARTED ON AUGUST 4, 2008, WHEN LOUIS ZIEGLER SENT OUT TO THE TENANTS AT FORT HILL ELDER HOUSING A MEMO ABOUT THE SOCIAL BEING CANCELED FOR THE MONTH AND ABOUT ADDITIONAL PARKING SPACES. ON THE BOTTOM OF THE MEMO IT SAYS, "When a resident leaves their apartment, visitors need to leave with them. We can not have non-residents staying in the apartments when residents are not home."

A TENANT MEETING WAS HELD ON AUGUST 21, 2008. ONE PERSON SAID THIS IS NOT A NEW POLICY. ONE TENANT WAS CONCERNED ABOUT LEAVING HER 47 OLD SON ALONE IN HER APARTMENT, WHO IS IN THE ARMY. ANOTHER TENANT ASKED WHAT IF HE LEFT HIS ADULT DAUGHTER IN HIS APARTMENT TO USE THE COMPUTER AND HE WENT TO THE GATHERING ROOM. IT WAS POINTED OUT THAT WE DO NOT HAVE THIS POLICY IN OTHER RENTAL UNITS, LIKE ON CHURCH STREET, UNCASVILLE. IT WAS NOTED THAT THEY ARE A DIFFERENT KIND OF BUILDING. LOU ZEIGLER SAID HE WOULD TAKE THE MATTER TO THE HOUSING AUTHORITY.

ALTHOUGH I AM NOT A LAWYER, I BELIEVE THIS CLAUSE IN THE LEASES IS ILLEGAL BECAUSE OF THE FOLLOWING REASONS.

1. IT VIOLATES THE MOHEGAN CONSTITUTION. ARTICLE XI-INDIVIDUAL RIGHTS OF TRIBAL MEMBERS SECTION 1. The Mohegan Tribe, in exercising its powers of self-government, shall make no law inconsistent with The Indian Civil Rights Act of 1968 (U.S.C. ss 1301-1303; 82 Stat. 77), which reguires that the Tribe not: (h) Deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of its laws or deprive any person of liberty or property without the process of law,

2. IT VIOLATES THE BILL OF RIGHTS OF THE UNITED STATES WHICH GUARANTEES THE PURSUIT OF HAPPINESS.

3. IT VIOLATES THE UNITED STATES CONSTITUTIONS" FIRST AMENDMENT BY CONTROLLING PEOPLES MOVEMENT AND TRACKING THEIR COMING AND GOING.

4. IT VIOLATES ORDINANCE 2005-06 RIGHTS AND RESPONSIBILITIES OF LANDLORD AND TENANT. SEC. 12 LANDLORD RULES AND REGULATIONS (a) (1) the purpose of the rule or regulation is to promote the convenience, safety or welfare of the tenants in the premises. IT ALSO VIOLATES SECTION 13 TENAT'S RESPONSIBILITIES (g) conduct himself/herself and require other persons on the premises with his to conduct themselves in a manner that will not disturb his neighbors' peaceful enjoyment of the premises or constitute a nuisance.

5. IT VIOLATES THE STATE TENANT LANDLORD LAWS OF CONNECTICUT. I BELIEVE WHEN THE TRIBE SIGNED THE COMPACT WITH CONNECTICUT, WE AGREED TO PUT INTO OUR LAW AND ORDER CODE, THE LAWS OF CONNECTICUT AND THE UNITED STATES.

6. EACH TENANT HAS RENTERS INSURANCE AND IS RESPONSIBLE FOR WHAT HIS GUESTS DO IN THEIR APARTMENTS.

NOW THIS BRINGS US TO ANOTHER PROBLEM. WHEN MOST OF THE TENANTS MOVED INTO FORT HILL EDLER HOUSING , IT WAS ELDER HOUSING. IT WAS CHANGED TO ASSISTED LIVING BY THE TRIBAL COUNCIL ON THE RECOMMENDATION OF THE HOUSING AUTHORITY. NO ONE ASKED THE TENANTS ASSOCIATION. NO SURVEY WAS SENT TO THE TENANTS OF FORT HILL ELDER HOUSING. CAN SOMEONE EXPLAIN HOW THIS CAN HAPPEN? IS THIS LEGAL? HAVE OUR RIGHTS BEEN VIOLATED? ISN'T THE TRIBAL COUNCILS DUTY TO DO THE WILL OF THE TRIBE? .

TO THE TRIBAL COUNCIL , COUNCIL OF ELDERS, THE MOHEGAN LEGAL DEPARTMENT, AND TRIBAL MEMBERS EVERYWHERE, LET'S DO AWAY WITH THIS OPPRESSIVE CLAUSE IN THE TENANTS LEASES.

MAYBE SOMEDAY THE TENANTS AT FORT HILL WILL BE ABLE TO LEAVE THEIR ADULT CHILDREN ALONE IN THE TENANTS APARTMENT WITHOUT HAVING TO TAKE THEM WITH THEM.