(A) In any action under this section, the city shall first bear the burden of producing sufficient evidence that a reasonable fact finder could find by a preponderance of the evidence that a violation of the subchapter has occurred or that a chronic nuisance properties exists. The burden of producing evidence shall then shift to the defendant.
(B) The city has the burden of providing, by clear and convincing evidence, its entitlement to a remedy enjoining the use giving rise to a chronic nuisance properties and abating such use as a public nuisance. However, in all proceedings, the city has the burden of providing, only by a preponderance of the evidence, its entitlement to a fine for violation of this subchapter.
(C) In any action under this subchapter, it is an affirmative defense to be established by a preponderance of the evidence by a defendant that:
(1) The defendant had no knowledge of the existence of the alleged chronic nuisance and a reasonable person under similar circumstances likewise would not; and
(2) The defendant had no control of the alleged underlying nuisance activity and that a reasonable person under similar circumstances likewise would not.
(D) It is no defense under this section that the chronic nuisance is contributed to by the acts of others over whom defendant has no control, if there still would be a chronic nuisance without such contribution.
(Prior Code, § 5.940) (Ord. 1999-13, passed 10-22-1999)