Phil Luciano’s article today once again highlights the no-win situation of city code enforcers. You know, if they don’t enforce the law on the petty issues, people complain about them not doing their jobs and wax eloquent about how important it is to fix problems when they’re small so bigger violations aren’t likely to happen (aka the “broken window theory”). But if they do enforce the little issues, then people like Phil Luciano complain that (a) the ordinance is stupid, and/or (b) this person who’s breaking the ordinance should be an exception.
In this particular case, apparently Phil thinks that code violation officers, upon seeing someone violating some ordinance, should immediately find out how much money the person has put into their house, interview the person to see if they have a justified reason for breaking the ordinance, perhaps interview a few neighbors to see how they feel about it, and then make an informed decision on whether to enforce the law or not based on those factors. Most importantly, if the person threatens to move, immediately tear up the citation and allow them to break any code they want.
Obviously, the problem is that everyone has an excuse for breaking an ordinance. Rare is the person who flagrantly violates the law without some reason for doing so, no matter how flimsy that reason may be. I’m sure code enforcement officers have heard them all.
Question: Do we want the code enforced? If not, let’s get these ordinances off the books. If so, stop complaining when the code enforcement officers do their jobs.
You and Bill must be accessing the site very early or using the dead tree version. I can’t seem to get into to their site until late in the PM.
CJ –
My only issue with this is that then there really needs to be an ordinance (if there isn’t one) on junk (old refrigerators, etc.) sitting in lawns, porches, sides of houses and driveways. I guess my point is that even though it may be against some ordinance, there are far more aesthetic eyesores in this community than this guys truck and if the COP is going to bust him for a temporary (as it isn’t always there) eyesore, I just think there are bigger fish to fry.
I think the point is missed here. If you ticket one, and this guy should be ticketed, then enforce the same all over the city. Trouble is, the city looks the other way in some areas of town and will do nothing about the same issue elsewhere. If they allow the guy to violate the city code on parking on lawns, or not on a hard or rocked surface, then you can’t very well enforce it at other locations. The point is if it wasn’t for the out of control crime on some bluffs and in the southern valley, maybe the guy could safely park legally on the street. After all, that is why this guy wants to park close to his house and that is why drug dealers park their cars right outside their bedroom windows too. It IS the little things that make or break a neighborhhood.
The city has approximately 150 abandoned or structurly unsafe buildings ane the county has about 45. In April, the County passed a building code that susposedly now allows us to take action either with or against the owners. The city has the necessary legal tools to move with more expediency but doesn’t appear to be making much progress. I’m pressuring the county to show me progress and will be bringing it up at every Health and Environment and Executive session. Shelley Epstein asked if I wanted to write an editorial on the subject but I am giving our county administrator time to act on the April New Building Code.
I’ve talked to a number of next door neighbors and taken pictures. Some neighbors are afraid to complain for fear of retalitiation. This complaining would get more teeth if it also comes from the Neighborhood Associations. Most blame the city and county for inaction and that is true. We need to enlist the media to start a campaign that is just as important to some neighbhoods as the litter campaign underway again. (we had a drive against litter when John Stenson was Police Chief. )
Stenson would take interest in your complaint and didn’t see the little things (as Bill Dennis calls them) as a pain. He acted on them too. It is quality of life issues and when the city doesn’t act or neighbors will not complain simply out of fear, then “they” have won. “They” usually rent and destroy property. “They” don’t hold jobs and buy consumer goods like new cars and washer and dyers. “They” don’t build decent neighborhoods. You have to start somewhere.
Despite our other differences, I think I agree with you, EM.
Agree Vonster, I don’t see eye to eye with you at times but I do respect your opinions. Thanx