To the editor:

It is unfortunate that the Feb. 5 interview with landlord Serina Hearn regarding off-campus disorderly behavior left so much out. The house that had 14 police calls was a perfect example of what she was trying to say: The current system of fines is not working.

That house sustained more in unpaid damages than any fines charged. The threat of fines in the rental contract was an attempt to discourage damaging parties and neighborhood disturbances, not as a moneymaking venture, as one reader extrapolated. Furthermore, if landlords are not successful in their attempts to deter disorderly behavior, the landlord is then charged for tenant’s misbehavior.

The suggestion was that the city, Kansas University, neighborhood associations, students and landlords all agree on a workable solution, not just a knee-jerk punishment approach. Other universities have effective programs encouraging respectful behavior off campus; students are given orientation about what it means to live among local residents. If the code of conduct doesn’t work, the police may then have to respond to a complaint. If that doesn’t work, a further step may lead to university sanction and as a last step, a suspension.

KU’s philosophy is that of noninterference off campus, but whose responsibility is it to educate when the city and landlords fail? Some say eviction is the answer, but eviction for a tenant who pays rent is not a guaranteed or speedy process. And what happens after that: The offender just moves on to the next neighborhood and makes more noise?

Tony Backus,

Lawrence