Jennifer Davis reports today on Gary Sandberg’s disputes with the city over property he owns. He had to pay fines before he was sworn in as an at-large councilman or else face the possibility of being removed for being in violation of state law 65 ILCS 5/3.1‑10‑5(b). That statute states you can’t hold municipal office if you’re “in arrears in the payment of a tax or other indebtedness.” Sandberg owed a couple of fines ($110 for the city to clean up what he claims were properly-stored construction materials on his property, and $500 for not registering another property he owns as rental property; he claims it’s owner occupied) which he paid off just before being sworn in a couple weeks ago.

Having heard both sides of the story on the the city clean-up item, I feel that Gary should have paid those fines a long time ago (the incident happened in 2004). He still could have fought against any due-process violations he felt were made without withholding payment.

The housing issue is interesting, though. Sandberg claims he occupies the house at 1723 N. Bigelow at least part-time, but the city says otherwise. Because the property doesn’t have water or electric service, it was determined by the city that it is not occupied and therefore has to be registered. I think that sounds logical and reasonable. While a case could be made that you don’t have to have electricity to occupy a house, I think you definitely need to have water, if for no other reason than to flush the toilet.

But here’s the issue. I can find no definition of “occupied” or “occupancy” in the municipal code that requires electric or water service. Can anyone find it for me? And is electric and water service the only things necessary for a house to be considered “occupied”?

I ask only because 616 Phelps isn’t registered with the city. That’s the supposed city residence of Streets Department manager David Haste. That home apparently has water and electricity, but no stove. No stove means no cooking. Unlike the absence of a clear definition of “occupied,” the code is pretty clear on what constitutes a “dwelling.”

The definition of “dwelling” in Sec. 5-520 states (emphasis mine), “Dwelling shall mean any enclosed space which is wholly or partially habitable by human occupants, and is used or intended to be used for living, sleeping, cooking and eating….” So, why is it that Haste can be considered in compliance with registration requirements even though his house isn’t even a “dwelling” by definition?

My point here is not that Sandberg should get off the hook because others got off the hook. My point is that enforcement of these ordinances should be evenhanded, and they’re not. There are different rules for different people.

When Haste is found to not meet city residency requirements, it’s overlooked. But when Sandberg is found in violation of property registration requirements, he’s threatened with being unseated if he doesn’t pay.

I guess it all depends on who’s got your back.