In the Council Committee meeting from Tuesday, Feb. 11th, they discussed the backyard parking on grass issue: Ord. # 002-2020. The meeting was contentious and so I just wanted to give my analysis.

Clearly, a few at the table feel that we already have legislation on the books which cover the junk cars in the backyard and that they’re simply not being utilized and so, to add even more legislation on the books seems foolish, particularly when they won’t use what they’ve got in the first place to do the job.

Clearly the Administration feels differently. I don’t know if Councilor Bailey submitted his findings to the Mayor and Service Director first because they seemed flummoxed with his findings. Their claim seems to be that the legislation we have on the books isn’t enough to allow them to do something about these junk cars they lament. Councilor Bailey, who gave an excellent presentation on his findings and stood strong in defense of them, disagreed and kept coming back, time and again, with how Mr. Woodruff’s assertions were incorrect. This led to vigorous debate. Good!

The legislation, as it’s currently written, would make people who have vehicles parked on grass in their backyard, either move them onto ‘impervious surfaces’ ala blacktop/concrete or, put down these impervious surfaces in order to keep those vehicles on their property. Here then is the legislation’s chief problem:

There are plenty of people in this town who, while they may store vehicle(s) on grass in their backyard, are law-abiding, caring citizens who register and license and maintain those vehicles and who take excellent care of their home and property. They are not the same as the scofflaws who pile up junk vehicles, don’t register and license them, etc. HOWEVER…BOTH of these citizens would have to be treated in the same manner under the law, specifically the Equal Protection clause of the 14th Amendment to the US Constitution. You cannot use the law to go after one group which you have issue with but not enforce it on another whom you don’t, even though they both fall under the same law’s directives. Therefore, if passed, aaallll those people who comply with the current law and who are decent and responsible citizens would be forced to pony up the money to pour a concrete pad, whether they have those funds or not. If not, they would have to store those vehicles elsewhere or simply get rid of them. Passing this law, as it is, would penalize responsible owners along with the irresponsible. That’s not right. That is what Councilor Kantor and Bailey, in part, argued. Unless you can come up with something which doesn’t do that, then the legislation is wrong to begin with, and they know it. As such, it should be dumped. Otherwise you’re setting the City up for a lawsuit where a citizen claims violation of their Civil Rights if they’re treated differntly, under the law, as other citizens.

In the atmosphere of ‘Team Maggard’ where everyone is in agreeable lockstep with her, it was like a drink of water in the desert to hear OUR representatives on Council making her defend her positions and legislation. Good!! If she’s right, fine. But if she’s wrong, we need to discover that and make her defend her positions, as is the right thing to do. Why all the carte blanche? Maybe some of the things she does is meritless. As such they should be rightly voted down if she doesn’t make a compelling case in its favor. Make her WORK for that position. Just handing her everything like she’s Queen Elizabeth II is ridiculous. As a citizen I’m tired of her being handed everything on a silver platter. Where is the dissent? And not dissent simply to dissent but because it merits dissent?

In the 11 years I’ve been going to meetings at City Hall and watching elected officials, there has never been an opportunity given the citizens to have the kind of meeting, with the Mayor and/or elected officials in attendance where we’re able to have vigorous debate. Yes, they have had ‘Town Hall’ meetings but these are not that. They’re usually  heavily filled with the status quo, scripted and scheduled with speakers from the city, with no conversation or debate but only short Q and A’s at the end. Why shouldn’t the Mayor be made to justify her positions and legislation? Talk about, in a non-scripted, off the cuff manner? Its her 3rd and last term, as some on Council, why can’t they have these kind of conversations with us?