If you’re not aware, City Hall, the Maggard administration, via the Director of Public Safety and Department of Development, Zach Woodruff, has drawn up legislation to disallow parking on grass (pervious surfaces) in citizen’s backyards. Previously, they have drawn up and passed legislation regarding citizen’s front and side yards but now it appears they want to legislate your backyard. Due to citizen alarm, Mr. Woodruff gave this presentation on Feb. 4th’s Council meeting to allay citizen concerns and address misconceptions of the legislation. If you haven’t seen his presentation, here it is below.

I have been a vocal critic of the legislation; its motives, its implementation, its implications and so, NOT being attached to City Hall nor ‘Team Maggard’, I wanted to give a rebuttal to their biases inherent in this presentation in order to give Whitehall citizens a full picture of everything. For now, this is simply a rebuttal, a fuller argument against the legislation itself will come later.

Mr. Woodruff’s assertion: He assures this legislation won’t trample on people’s civil rights and liberties and that they’re perfectly within their legal rights to look at aerial photos, per Supreme Court decision: California v Ciraolo.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/California_v._Ciraolo

My response: While liberty is guaranteed in the Declaration of Independence, it is not one of the civil ‘rights’ within the Constitution. Speaking with my attorney, who happens to be a Constitutional professor, he said that while it is not a part of the Constitution, he believes it to be a ‘right’. (“We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness) Therefore, I maintain that our liberty, God-given, is an unalienable right, which includes parking cars on grass in our backyards.
As well,  while they may not be breaking laws by looking at aerial photos taken by other entities for unrelated purposes, they are crossing a line of respect and decency and morality as OUR government agents. They always seem to leave that consideration out of the equation when discussing what they can and can’t do.

Mr. Woodruff’s assertion: Because some cities have Home Owner’s Associations which regulate homeowners , the city then doesn’t have to regulate things.

My response: Our government does not exist to act as an H.O.A. They are there to guarantee us our rights, only, not to give or take them away based on their own Authoritarian whims and fancies and the pleasure of other citizens.

Mr. Woodruff’s assertion: Enforcement of this legislation (if passed) would be the same: they’d have to see the infractions from ‘public view’ or the right-of-way or by being allowed by a neighbor/informant to photograph your property from theirs, at which point, having a complaint, they will then utilize other agencies aerial photos to better determine what the merit of the complaint is.

My response: Their enforcement will still be regulated by the 4th Amendment to the US Constitution, as bolstered by the Supreme Court decision; Camara v Municipal Court.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Camara_v._Municipal_Court_of_City_and_County_of_San_Francisco

If and only if, they can see offenses from the public view/the right-of-way or an informant neighbor lets the government onto their property to photograph yours, can they cite you for an obvious infraction, like they did Vietnam Veteran Dave Deluca when they photographed artificial flowers in his yard:  https://whitehallwatchblog.com/2015/11/01/the-petty-tyranny-of-whitehall-code-enforcement-part-four/
If they cannot see that the car is actually on grass from either viewpoint, then they feel it allowable to use other’s aerial photos as an extra ‘tool’ to see more expansively into your backyard, whereas, normally, they’d have to have a warrant to search your backyard. Now, they can simply look at it using (probable) outdated photographs from other sources.

Mr. Woodruff’s assertion: From the perspective of right-of-ways or neighbor’s yards, all may appear to be within ‘code’. However, using Google Earth, et al, they’re able to see a wider scope of what may be a problem.

My response: Using other’s aerial photos to legally look into people’s backyards gives them a wider scope and deeper scrutiny of that which they may not otherwise see, OR, that wasn’t a problem from the right-of-way in the first place! The aerial photos are providing your immoral government with greater access to private properties than ever before, where they can really see stuff now!

Mr. Woodruff’s assertion: He asserts that the ‘vast majority of residents who I think will be in favor of this’ are primarily non-verbal citizen’s whose non-opinions on this matter (not proffered for any number of reasons) should be considered.

My response: So, instead of counting and having an understanding of who and how many are for or against this legislation, from City Hall’s perspective, Council must also factor in all the meek/ghost residents whose opinions would align with governments on this matter. If that’s the case then I say we must also consider all those against it who also don’t speak out.
A ridiculous argument.

Mr. Woodruff’s assertion: This is not an attack or to try to rid the city of a sub-set of citizens, ala poor people, etc.

My response: While this concern has been expressed by more than just myself, it doesn’t merely appear out of nowhere. It emanates from what we’ve already, historically, seen from the Maggard administration, i.e.- Fairport Apartments and Woodcliff, the majority of residents of which, largely poor and or working class, were displaced due to development designs this corporate-friendly administration undertook. I’ve seen no wealthier interests do anything but profit from her designs. It seems, so far, that it is only the lower strata of our citizens who keep bearing the brunt of their decisions and legislation at City Hall. Forgive the cynicism but their reassurances that this legislation is in no way intended to oust a ‘subset’ of citizens must be taken with only a grain of salt.

Mr. Woodruff’s assertion: Mr. Woodruff admits that this problem is only a small percentage of citizens who abuse this, (using fear-based hypotheticals to push the Administration’s legislation) but, asserts that it could become 20, 30, 40, 50…even 60%.

My response: If it is such a small percentage, then leave it alone. Using hyperbole and fear-based rhetoric to sell your anti-liberty incursions into people’s private backyards is understandable to sell what you want but is otherwise based on bullshit and not welcome.

Analysis:

Firstly, let it be said that at least two of the photos used to make the case for this legislation have been identified to me by the occupant. One of them tells me its an old photo, that it no longer looks like it does in the photo. I have been to this man’s house and I know this to be true. As well, a property is shown that appears to have been taken from the rear of a property or a neighbors yard as an example of something that may look concerning but is not ‘illegal’ and is up to code (Then why was the photo taken Mr. Woodruff?) Mr. Woodruff then shows us how the use of aerial photos can be a means for them to understand ‘how bad it is’, using an aerial photo of the same property “from a number of years ago” where it shows the yellow bus in the same spot as the more recent photo from before. He uses this ‘evidence’ then to make the assumptive assertion that the bus, being in the same spot, therefore hasn’t moved in ‘years’. This assumption on his part which turns out to be nothing more than that. An assumption (and a citizen’s private backyard by the way) which is used as a tool to pitch a public sell-job on his legislation.
I’ve spoken with the owner of this property and while the bus is in the same spot on concrete in both photos, it is completely operable, licensed, drivable and used by him. So then, the ‘evidence’ used to push the narrative for this legislations passage is shown to be, in part at least, faulty, bringing to mind the city’s use of hyperbole and obfuscation when selling citizens on another Maggard administration project; the need to push poor people out of their homes to buy Fairport Apartments for development purposes, as documented here, appropriately titled ‘The Politics of Perception’, that title which could easily characterize this current City Hall presentation:

THE POLITICS OF PERCEPTION

On that topic, when people close to the administration try so hard to sell you on this legislation, don’t so simply buy their enthusiasm. They have vested interests in the administration’s success (regardless of the good or ill for Whitehall this legislation presents) and so, their biases cloud their independent thinking on the matter. Don’t fall for it.

A word on anonymity of complaints. Whenever I’ve heard what a great thing anonymous complaining to code enforcement is, it is always from elected officials and their cheerleaders. That this policy protects these code informants from ‘retribution’ over their actions. I think its awful. The meme below explains my position on it well but I will add; when the government says that they’re investigating an anonymous complaint, we have to take their word for it. So, when a government administration is as underhanded, manipulative and untrustworthy as the Maggard administration, how can we trust their word or ever believe that what they’re saying is the truth? That maybe they decided for themselves to be the enforcer of things no citizens otherwise ever care about or complain over. At that point, its then the administration’s taste and desires and whims (political or otherwise) that guides enforcement. That is not why they’re there and is rife with possible corruption of enforcement (Who’s a friend of the administration? Who’s an enemy? Who donated to political campaigns, who donated to opponents campaigns?) Their own untrustworthy behavior has led to this untrustworthiness and suspicion. They are solely responsible for its presence. As such, it is dangerous to so blindly trust them with an authority which has the power to so ill-affect citizen’s lives.

To sum up: The Maggard administration expects us to trust them when they introduce and push things like this legislation. To trust that they will use it ethically and judiciously, with respect for citizen’s privacy and rights and to, simply, trust them to do the right thing, trusting them to be trustworthy with the power we gave them.
I claim, because they themselves caused the mistrust when they didn’t heed conflicts of interest, when they ignored and abused the public trust, that when powers of office were abused to tip the scales in their favor over Woodcliff, when they sold the citizens, with bullshit, on why they should spend millions of dollars of our money acquiring property they wanted for development and badly screwed owners out of their investments for property they long ago drew up plans for (Woodcliff), that they simply can’t be trusted to do the right thing, to act in respectful and ethical ways when it comes to citizens rights/privacy/dignity.
They’ve historically shown how underhanded and manipulative they are and how, when you make the city’s motto ‘Opportunity is here’ and the Mayor and Director of Public Service and Development are featured glowingly in Columbus CEO magazine:

https://www.columbusceo.com/business/20190826/whitehalls-getting-its-groove-back-thanks-to-kim-maggard
https://www.columbusceo.com/business/20191230/future-50-zachary-woodruff-city-of-whitehall

one can’t help but concern themselves then with WHO exactly they’re really here for. After all they’ve done, I assert that its not the actual citizen’s best interests they’re trying to fight for but the wealthy and vested corporate interests who they’re hand in hand with. The regular citizens who this would impact (and the far-reaching impacts its passage would have on us that we can’t see yet) are the ones who’d pay the price, those who are in the way of OHM’s ‘Whitehall Works Development Blueprint’ plan to re-envision Whitehall and the corporate standard which the administration tries to lead us by the nose with. Its all right there in the OHM report if you ever cared to go through it.
http://www.whitehallworks.com/?fbclid=IwAR30WMVOV3E1v6kLNeMfCqmVbFCT4Y22sy52xyS3xSZ-EeLHlWqeKO3pwM4

I did go through it and offered up my views on it, page by page, in this blogpost:

THE OHM REPORT ON WHITEHALL’S FUTURE: MY OBSERVATIONS

A satirical illustration into the Maggard administration deciding what’s best for citizens.

Within it I found a very telling aspect of their plan: their intention, an ‘implementation strategy’, is to see their ‘plan goals’ through using code enforcement as a tool to get us to where the ‘blueprint’ for our future demands, not where our own lives and desires want to take us. Where we’re just pawns in someone else’s plans for OUR lives and future.

Here are the 3 key pages from this assertion:

They commissioned a plan to set Whitehall onto a path for its future, a plan that was, largely, guided by those in the status quo. That plan which Whitehall is set on bringing to fruition. It is clear as a bell from the plan itself how they intend to use code enforcement to get people to ‘comply’ with what THEY want so as to see the plan through to completion (that which may not be in YOUR best interest or which you may even want). Is this plan good for citizens or the corporate standard they’re insisting we all comply with? Does this mean codifying you out of existence if you don’t comply with their plan? What happened to YOUR rights as an individual American, to be free from niggling government intrusion? You don’t have any obligation to adhere to some plan politicians contracted someone else to come up with, using YOUR money (politicians, by the way, who lacked their own personal imagination, true vision or acumen to come up with this on their own)

The fact is that this legislation is just being used by an untrustworthy government administration to cut into your personal liberty in order to promote a larger anti-liberty, pro-business, artificial, corporate-standardized community by design, where wealthy corporate interests (who don’t live here) continue to get richer and those citizens who’re codified out of Whitehall continue to be marginalized into oblivion. Where your right to liberty is jettisoned for their corporate standard.
As for me, I’m not buying into their fear-mongering, relaxed posturing of selflessness for the good of quality of life and people’s property values. This legislation, simply, is a disrespectful, Authoritarian, controlling artifice for their larger schemes, those which are ultimately anti-citizen, anti-liberty and anti-American. Call or email them and tell them: NOT in your name.