See ‘Mark This Down: Scott Is the Un-Fulwood’
At last night’s City Council meeting, I thought it was somewhat comical hearing officials try to make the case that the revised code is easier to understand and that we (members of the public) just don't understand it.
One highlight during the discussion of the property maintenance ordinance was (deputy City Attorney) Lisa Vidra referring to people who get citations and ask for a hearing as “violators” instead of as “alleged violators.”
She spoke as though that determination was decided already and the whole purpose of the process is to get compliance as soon as possible.
Hearings ought to be about being fair to and respectful of all parties.
I'll be surprised if anyone who has been through one thinks they are fair.
The tone of the draft was all about the convenience of officialdom to enforce the code (i.e., “win”) and not about describing where individual property rights end and public rights begin, as the current code does.
The existing code recognizes that many of us have a backyard so we have a place to put the stuff we don't want out in public.
The new one says there is no difference between back and front, inside and out. Some of us realize that they don't really have a right to enter our properties, but how many will they fool into thinking they do? And what about what they can see from a neighbor's property?
I'm delighted to have a workshop situation and a review by regular people.
Property rights issues aren't any different than they were in 1965 or 1765. It's still about that line between mine, yours and ours.
This isn't rocket science. It's common sense and communication.
A public meeting with a three-minute time limit was always the problem. So maybe a workshop will be better.
I'm hoping people will let City Hall know that we still expect our privacy to not only be respected but defended.
Ms. Kallander may be contacted at Sandra@Kallander.info
