By speaking in protest mode at nine consecutive City Council meetings, the occasional activists Tony Pappas and Sandra Kallander have handed Councilman Gary Silbiger the kind of philosophical conundrum he loves to ponder:
When the same two residents hammer away at a single subject every week for more than two months, does that mean that extraordinarily passionate feelings are coursing through the community?
Or does it suggest that the interest is quite localized and probably does not bother anyone else?
The formal answer will have to percolate until Monday night’s meeting when the Council, no doubt in the presence of Ms. Kallender and Mr. Pappas, will introduce a modernized version of a property maintenance/public nuisance ordinance that has infuriated the two activists.
It Looks Pedestrian
New City Manager Mark Scott promptly contributed a calming hand to the debate. “The code being proposed is very similar to the one used by most well-run cities in the state,” he said. “It is almost a model ordinance. I have looked at it. I don’t see anything out of the ordinary with regard to other cities.”
The original nuisance law has been in the Municipal Code for more than 40 years. Around City Hall, officials maintain that in spite of the miniature weekly protests, the amendments are unremarkable.
“From the discussions that have taken place at Council meetings,” says Mayor Andy Weissman, “I would say the interest in the ordinance is very concentrated. There is not a lot of angst among the general public. This is not unusual. Almost without regard to the issue, the vast majority of Culver City residents don’t involve themselves in the details.”
Since the ordinance first surfaced on April 6, Mr. Pappas and Ms. Kallander have identified what they regard as a passel of significant, if not sneaky and suffocating, flaws in the way it is written, unacceptably vague and dangerous, they assert.
The Mayor was careful to extend credit to them. “The comments, over time, will lead to a better ordinance,” Mr. Weissman said.
Serving a Favorable Purpose
“They have highlighted certain ambiguities, inconsistencies, uncertainties in the original draft which I think will ultimately be resolved in the final iteration.”
In passing, the Mayor cited one of the protestors’ plump targets. “One provision specifically called out trash cans visible from the public right-of-way, in front of or on the side of, one’s house,” Mr. Weissman said.
“As a result of Sandra and Tony highlighting some provisions, amongst others, the (city) staff has taken a look at the application. They will come back Monday with a revision, making it more applicable to circumstances in Culver City.”
The Mayor said the pair’s weekly speakouts “have been helpful in the sense that staff is being challenged to make sure the language they are proposing will be incorporated into the ordinance. It will be as clear and unambiguous as possible.”
The main theme of the suspicious protestors ma seems to be that the language in the updated law is too vague, needlessly widening a net by which City Hall can snare unsuspecting residents as violators.
“They are saying that the ordinance overreaches,” said Mr. Weissman. “I don’t agree.”
While the Mayor’s criticism was lack of clarity in a number of instances, he says the system is working.
“The process of proposing an ordinance and then allowing nine weeks of public comment before a revised version is brought back, is positive. The desirability of encouraging and welcoming public comments for two months is there. And only two members of the public have taken advantage of the opportunity.”
The Mayor added that “public nuisance and public nuisance ordinances are very much a part of municipal law. It is not a unique aspect, not by any stretch radical nor is it re-inventing the wheel.”
