The next BOA meeting on July 27, 2009 will contain the second reading of the "dreaded carport issue!"
Ladies and gentlemen, I know we all want a beautiful view when we happen to gaze into the neighbors carport, but is that realistic? What we have here is a "neighbor v neighbor" issue that has been brought to the attention of the Planning and zoning board, who have decided to make a Federal case out of nothing!
As it stands now, we have laws on the books reference "car ports," when we can take out the trash, and when the cans must be out of public view. Can anyone really tell me that this "new ordnance" will change anything? I say it will not! We have a code enforcement officer, heck we have two of them who can, and should enforce the ordnance now on the books, but apparently they rarely do.
I look at this silliness as the "nose of the camel getting a bit further in the tent!" I have young neighbors who have small children, and have their outdoor toys on their carport. Are we to consider them to be "scofflaws" because the little kids want to ride on their toys?
What we have going on here is at best silly, and at the worst ridiculous to say the least! Folks, we have many more worries than "car ports," may I suggest that the "P&Z board take them up and quit trying to layer law on law just for the sake of looking "busy!"
Tom Ford
NO. 650
As it stands now, we have laws on the books reference "car ports," when we can take out the trash, and when the cans must be out of public view. Can anyone really tell me that this "new ordnance" will change anything? I say it will not! We have a code enforcement officer, heck we have two of them who can, and should enforce the ordnance now on the books, but apparently they rarely do.
I look at this silliness as the "nose of the camel getting a bit further in the tent!" I have young neighbors who have small children, and have their outdoor toys on their carport. Are we to consider them to be "scofflaws" because the little kids want to ride on their toys?
What we have going on here is at best silly, and at the worst ridiculous to say the least! Folks, we have many more worries than "car ports," may I suggest that the "P&Z board take them up and quit trying to layer law on law just for the sake of looking "busy!"
Tom Ford
NO. 650
posted by Crestwood Independent at 18:56
14 Comments:
The city needs to approach this topic with caution; their authority to regulate within a dwelling is narrowly and specifically defined by the courts. Litigation is expensive.
I agree with the position of maintaining a clean carport. It is not a storage container without walls.
On the other hand, I agree we don't need any more ordinances. We need to enforce the ones we have.
The BOA should simply say, "We are not going to discuss this issue and table it indefinitely.
What will the city do if I take my carport and enclose it with screens?
Will they have a right to control what I do with my property because they can see into it?
Bad law, run away!
9:12 AM blogger: Correct in every respect, I suggest we attend the meeting and talk down this idiocy before things get out of hand!
I haven't lived here for forty years to have someone telling me what I can and can't do with my property!
A survey of quite a few streets shows that all but seven carports are in compliance with the current ordnance. Now if we can get the code enforcement officer out of the Sappington House long enough, she can write seven tickets, and problem solved!
By the way, why is it that the Sappington House is only open from 12:00 to 2:30 PM today for a quilt show? My office secretary lives in Festus, and she wanted to see it, and asked why the short shrift on viewing hours?:
Since we know the code enforcement officer is not out issuing summons's why can't she do some of that "Sappington House Manager" stuff? After all she is getting paid to do it by us, so why not show a little service to the community?
In a word, this is PATHETIC!
Sometimes, in trying to cover every possibility, they can over regulate, and come up with some odd situations. I found one in the code definitions.
"REPAIR: To restore to a sound and acceptable state of appearance as required by this code.
Repair shall be expected to last approximately as long as would the replacement by new items."
What does the second sentence mean? Is it the code? Isn't the first sentence enough? Aren't repair and replace contradictory? If a picket on your fence breaks, do you need a new fence? Did the BOA that passed this read the whole thing?
I agree with the previous comments that we cannot regulate every tiny detail of life in Crestwood.
We all want to live in a pleasant, attractive, safe community, but we don't to be over regulated.
As the RV ordinance demonstrated, it is very difficult to legislate aesthetics, and as with the RV ordinance, the carport ordinance is further complicated by the fact that it involves private property.
Because aesthetics are necessarily subjective, it is impossible to create leglislation that satisifies everyone's definition of what constitutes an acceptable appearance.
The language in the RV ordinance referred to safety and property value issues, yet at the time the ordinance was discussed, no quantifiable data was presented to support the argument that the RV's posed a safety/health issue or led to a decrease in property values.
It would be nice if, before the BOA had a second reading on the carport ordinance, they could be provided with objective data that would help them determine if the ordinance is needed, and if it addresses objective (safety/health, property values) rather than subjective (aesthetic) concerns.
Martha Duchild
Martha,
I wholeheartedly agree with your post. But you are really asking a lot out of some of those who govern Crestwood.
Objective data? I mean you are really asking a lot. Next thing you know, you are going to want them to know a little about government service ... or constituent service.
Why don't you just ask for the moon??? ... on this 40th anniversary of the moon landing :)
But back to objective data -
was objective data used to determine the RV ordinance?
of course, the upcoming RV ordinance? Or what about the upcoming sales tax holiday?
Crestwood residents have fatigue - a lot of it. More on that later.
An open letter to the Board of Alderman, City of Crestwood.
Dear Madam, and Sirs,
I am asking that each of you take a very close look at this "carport ordinance" that will be coming before you at the next meeting.
We have in place a current ordinance that covers carport's as well as trash, and to my knowledge it is "selectively" enforced at best. I find it hard to believe we need another layer on something that is not enforced now.
To the best of my knowledge there is no need to waste valuable time, money, and resources writing more laws when we have it all covered now!
Via this letter I am asking for your NO vote on this issue, or at least a tabling of the issue until someone can show all of us why it's needed.
Should you decide that I am wrong, and you vote YES, I am requesting an email to me at tford60@earthlink.net outlining your reasoning behind your decision.
Please allow me to thank you in advance for your kind attention to this Matter.
Respectfully,
Thomas C. Ford
I really believe everyone is missing the point here. As Mr. Ford stated earlier it is a neighbor vs neighbor issue. Now if you were the one living next to the neighbor whose carport looks like the left overs from a garage sale, you might not be pleased either. Do we need more legislation? Probably not but as a resident of Crestwood, keep your carports cleaned up for the aesthic sake of the entire community. Do any of you want a carport next to you that looks like a booth at the peavly flea market? I doubt it.
Or a front yard in L.A. (lower Arnold!) Good grief, we do have our pride here even if the Mall is kaput!
Tom Ford
How did the car ports become such a plague? For over forty years neighbors have negotiated the differences with and without assistance from a government source. Please mayor and aldermen continue with more important issues.
To the Aldermen in attendance at the BOA meeting of 7/27/09.
Thank you for having the common sense and foresight to recognizance that the "Car Port issue" was not something that required a new law to enforce!
I appreciate your vote to cancel this, as we now have an ordnance on the books to cover it.
Tom Ford
I was at the meeting, and it seemed like the mayor was the most vocal proponent for this issue.
Getting our aldermen involved in isues like this is like Obama getting involved in settling a disagreement between a friend of his and the police.
Post a Comment
<< Home