NOTE: For whatever reason, my camera stopped recording at 2 hrs and 32 min. We have not had a meeting run this long since I began recording the meetings so I didn't expect this to occur. The video stops right after we begin discussions on the salvaged Crown Vics and is missing about the last 30 minutes. Missing from the video are discussions about the salvaged Crown Vics and the Main Street Application discussion.
Showing posts with label Parking. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Parking. Show all posts
Friday, June 19, 2009
Wednesday, May 6, 2009
Equal Application of the Law
We had a good board of aldermen's meeting last Monday. There were a couple of controversial topics discussed and I was encouraged by the deliberation and the exchange of ideas that took place. This board will not be rubber stamping anything through.
1. Steve Johnson – Southwest Materials, 2340 W. St. Highway CC. Requesting to Waive Water Impact on Temporary Water Line.
An equal application of law to every condition of man is fundamental.
-- Thomas Jefferson, to George Hay, 1807. ME 11:341
In a 4 to 2 vote, the board decided to charge Southwest Materials the difference between the impact fee they payed for their existing 2 inch line and the impact fee for the new 4 inch line that they wanted to put in. At $1000/per inch, they will end up paying a $2000 impact fee. I voted nay on the proposed solution. I am of the opinion that if you have a rule it should be applied equally. If the rule is not sufficient, than it should be changed. I felt like not applying the entire fee to Southwest Materials might appear that we were giving them preferential treatment. To avoid this, I would have liked to see the code changed to allow all businesses to receive this same exception in the future.
2. Lila Davis-Resident at 407 S. 3rd Ave. Discussion on Code Violations.
I would rather be exposed to the inconveniences attending too much liberty
than to those attending too small a degree of it.
-- Thomas Jefferson, letter to Archibald Stuart (1791)
There was no vote taken on this issue, only discussion. Don, who is the city employee charged with enforcing property codes presented an informational powerpoint presentation showing us a number of examples of properties that were in violation of the junk car or parking ordinances. He was also able to show us the improvements that citizens made to their properties after he went out to visit with them and talk to them about being in violation. Lila Davis also spoke to the board about her situation and how the ordinances are causing her undo burden, as the vehicles and property in question belong to her son who is often out of town, and she is disabled. Her neighborhood is old and and was not designed for multi car families. Mr. and Mrs. Wilcox spoke to the other side of this issue. They are of the opinion that violations of these ordinances ruin their property's value and are unfair to the rest of the neighborhood.
I visited Lila's neighborhood and found most of the homes were in violation. In fact, all over town there are many businesses and homes in violation. The Ozark Parks and Recreations department is even in violation, as it has buses parked in the grass at the Finley River Park. Personally, I think that if you want to live in a neighborhood where there are rules about what homes should look like and how they are maintained, you should purchase your home in neighborhood that has covenants. This way, you have the right to govern the appearance of your neighborhood through civil litigation.
The board has decided that the parking ordinance is something that needs to be looked into and possibly changed. Until we can further discus this at our retreat on the 16th, the city will not be enforcing this ordinance.
1. Steve Johnson – Southwest Materials, 2340 W. St. Highway CC. Requesting to Waive Water Impact on Temporary Water Line.
An equal application of law to every condition of man is fundamental.
-- Thomas Jefferson, to George Hay, 1807. ME 11:341
In a 4 to 2 vote, the board decided to charge Southwest Materials the difference between the impact fee they payed for their existing 2 inch line and the impact fee for the new 4 inch line that they wanted to put in. At $1000/per inch, they will end up paying a $2000 impact fee. I voted nay on the proposed solution. I am of the opinion that if you have a rule it should be applied equally. If the rule is not sufficient, than it should be changed. I felt like not applying the entire fee to Southwest Materials might appear that we were giving them preferential treatment. To avoid this, I would have liked to see the code changed to allow all businesses to receive this same exception in the future.
2. Lila Davis-Resident at 407 S. 3rd Ave. Discussion on Code Violations.
I would rather be exposed to the inconveniences attending too much liberty
than to those attending too small a degree of it.
-- Thomas Jefferson, letter to Archibald Stuart (1791)
There was no vote taken on this issue, only discussion. Don, who is the city employee charged with enforcing property codes presented an informational powerpoint presentation showing us a number of examples of properties that were in violation of the junk car or parking ordinances. He was also able to show us the improvements that citizens made to their properties after he went out to visit with them and talk to them about being in violation. Lila Davis also spoke to the board about her situation and how the ordinances are causing her undo burden, as the vehicles and property in question belong to her son who is often out of town, and she is disabled. Her neighborhood is old and and was not designed for multi car families. Mr. and Mrs. Wilcox spoke to the other side of this issue. They are of the opinion that violations of these ordinances ruin their property's value and are unfair to the rest of the neighborhood.
I visited Lila's neighborhood and found most of the homes were in violation. In fact, all over town there are many businesses and homes in violation. The Ozark Parks and Recreations department is even in violation, as it has buses parked in the grass at the Finley River Park. Personally, I think that if you want to live in a neighborhood where there are rules about what homes should look like and how they are maintained, you should purchase your home in neighborhood that has covenants. This way, you have the right to govern the appearance of your neighborhood through civil litigation.
The board has decided that the parking ordinance is something that needs to be looked into and possibly changed. Until we can further discus this at our retreat on the 16th, the city will not be enforcing this ordinance.
Friday, May 1, 2009
Your Input: Property Rights Vs. Pleasant View
Howdy!
The board of alderman will be hearing testimony on a touchy subject coming up this Monday. The matter at hand is weather or not people should be able to park their vehicles on the non-paved portions of their own property. In other words, Should citizens be able to park their cars in their yards? There are a lot of angles to this argument and I’d really like to get your input.
This is such a touchy subject that it made the paper this week:
http://www.ccheadliner.com/articles/2009/05/01/news/doc49f77f65509f9731027800.txt
http://www.ccheadliner.com/articles/2009/05/01/opinion/doc49f732cb65189303225684.txt
The Ordinance:
Section 355.130: Parking prohibited by certain types of vehicles in residential areas
A. This Section will use definitions that are contained in Section 301.010, RSMo., and as those definitions may be changed from time to time.
B. It shall be unlawful for any person to park or store any motor vehicle or trailer of any type without current license plates or any inoperable vehicle on any street, highway, private road or driveway in any area zoned "residential" within the corporate limits of the City of Ozark as established by the Official Zoning Map except that such motor vehicle or trailer may be parked or stored in a completely enclosed building or garage.
C. All vehicles permitted to be parked in residential areas shall be parked on a paved surface. (Ord. No. 06-016 §2, 2-20-06; Ord. No. 08-028 §1, 7-21-08)
My Thoughts:
I can easily see both sides of this argument. The problem lies in that either way you go, you run the chance of stepping on someone’s property rights. If you allow people to park their cars in their yard, it may decrease the property values of the neighboring properties. As I see it, my rights end where yours begin. However, I do not believe that parking a vehicle in your yard, whether it is legally tagged or not, will diminish property values in and of itself. If that vehicle is on blocks and is leaking oil and rusting…that is a different story. On the other hand, shouldn’t you be able to park whatever you want on your own property?
Personally, I don’t like the way the ordinance reads. At my house, we have 4 vehicles. One of which is a huge 1983 suburban that we rarely drive. Like a lot of folks, our garage is a storage unit for everything other than our cars. Luckily, we have a street that is wide enough to park on so we can park a vehicle in front of the house. There have been times where we have needed to make space in the driveway and have parked our suburban in the back yard or at the side of the house for days at a time. If our road wasn’t wide enough to park on, that suburban would stay parked in the yard all the time. Frankly, it’s my yard and I should be able to park in it if I want to, and it wouldn’t hurt my feelings if my neighbors did the same thing.
Regardless of how I feel about the ordinance, it exists. And while the law exists, it should be applied equally.
As for my opinion about this specific case, I will hold my judgment until I am able to hear all sides on Monday.
Let me know what you think about the way the current ordinance is written. Do you think it should be revised and how? What is your common sense approach that would allow people to park in the yard when they need to, but would maintain the beauty of our city?
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)