Re ‘Will 9 Weeks of Protesting Pay Off? Or Is That the Wrong Approach?’
Thank you for last week’s coverage of the issue of the updated public nuisance ordinance, which will be introduced at tonight’s City Council meeting. (See The Lowdown.)
Certainly, the ordinance is one that impacts every one of us in Culver City.
I would like to point out that Mayor Andy Weissman is mistaken when he says that our many appearances “have highlighted certain ambiguities, inconsistencies, uncertainties in the original draft which I think will ultimately be resolved in the final iteration.”
If the draft posted for the June 8 meeting becomes the final iteration, he's wrong.
I can't recall staff being directed to implement any of these suggested changes since the few that were discussed at my first appearance before the City Council on April 6.
And, in fact, the list of problems continues to get longer, the more I re-read the lengthy proposed ordinance.
The Mayor and the City Council can't congratulate themselves for allowing my public comment to inform the ordinance if they don't do their jobs and direct staff to make the corrections we point out.
Staff takes direction from the Council.
After then-Mayor Scott Malsin called my criticisms “lies,” Council has rarely commented on my appearances. I can't recall any direction to staff to even look at the issues, let alone correct any of them.
If the draft posted for tonight’s meeting becomes “the final iteration,” then all the flaws I've been talking about will still be there, such as the outright ban on personal property “visible from public or private property.”
We'll all be naked, if enforced. Assuming it isn't enforced, what personal property do they mean?
The problems start with the very first paragraph:
Ҥ 9.04.015. PROHIBITED PUBLIC NUISANCE CONDITIONS ON REAL PROPERTY.
“The City Council finds and declares that it is a public nuisance and unlawful for any person to allow, cause, create, maintain, or suffer, or permit others to maintain, real property or premises in the City in such a manner that any one or more of the following conditions are found to exist thereon:”
Which makes it unlawful for any person (you, me) to permit others (anyone) to maintain a prohibited condition on real property or premises.
Either they want to turn us all into snitches against our neighbors (assuming they meant “to allow conditions of which we are aware”), or meant to limit it to our own properties. I doubt this will stand up in court, as written. But it is symptomatic of the problems in the ordinance. A lawyer could probably find more problems where it violates the Constitution or case law.
I don't know about you. But I don't want to be responsible for the acts of others anywhere in Culver City.
Incidentally, a public nuisance is by definition a misdemeanor, punishable by up to $1,000 per day.
And you are guilty of one if you permit paint to peel anywhere on any structure: fence, retaining wall, swing set, garage, birdhouse, doghouse, patio furniture or any built or assembled item in your yard, front, back, indoors. It's ridiculous.
I have run a comparison of the April 6 and June 8 versions of the ordinance. It shows how few changes they have made and that they have not addressed the issues we've brought up since then. I can send you a copy if you like.
As you evidently watch the Council meetings, you should be aware that more than “two members of the public have taken advantage of the opportunity.”
Ms. Kallander may be contacted at Sandra@Kallander.info
