Throughout this blogpost, I’ve tried to make it as concise and easy to read as possible. Its broken up clearly by categories and no one category/response is too long. This legislation has great impact on our community and so it deserves this focus. What is written needs to be said, as is your taking it in. I’ve tried my best to honor that end for you. 

THE LEGISLATION:

The Maggard administration, via the Service Department, has introduced legislation that would prohibit parking vehicles on grass in your backyard. While seemingly simple in its presentation, it has turned contentious and convoluted. Let me try to clarify it.

The Maggard administration argues it is being introduced, along with Ord. 003-2020, to clean up backyard junkyards and ‘parking lots’. That all legislation before it simply doesn’t give them the teeth needed to go after this ‘problem’. Of course, they’d still be beholding to the 4th Amendment to the US Constitution (warrants/permission), unless they’re
A) able to see, ‘in plain view’ the problem that exists from right of ways or
b) with photos taken by a neighbor into the backyard of the troublesome property or
c) are given permission to come onto the complainants property to take photos,
otherwise, there’d be nothing they could do otherwise.
As well, it does not tell you how many vehicles you may own on your property or that you can’t park in your backyard. Those are misconceptions. What it does say is that you can’t park those vehicles on ‘non-impervious’ surfaces, meaning anything that isn’t ‘pervious’, ala blacktop, concrete and the like. In other words, you wouldn’t be able to park your cars on the ground, grassy or otherwise.
Below are the two tandem legislations meant to work with each other.

ARGUMENTS FOR THE LEGISLATION (WITH COUNTERPOINTS):

Argument 1: It doesn’t tell people how many cars they can have on their property.

Counterargument 1: Not per se. If you have 20 vehicles in your backyard and you have to put down concrete to park them all on impervious surfaces but 003-2020 limits the amount of space you can pave over and it isn’t enough for all your vehicles, then that, by means of these tandem legislations, does limit the number of vehicles you can have.

Argument 2: Nearly all the other communities have legislation like this in place, why shouldn’t we?

Counterargument 2: This is because all the communities are run by a corporate standard anymore, there is little to no individuality or personal character because that can get in the way of the corporations ability to make money. Bland, standardized dullness is the template for maximum profitability of cities. That which leaves little room for messy individual human character.

Argument 3: Its a problem that’s only going to get bigger.

Counterargument 3: Even by Public Service Director Woodruff’s admission, whose name is on this legislation, it is only a small percentage of houses abusing this situation. By my own accounting with the photos provided me by Mr. Woodruff (16): If there are 5000 or so individual houses in Whitehall and 16 is the number of the worst violators, then that represents a sliver of only 0.50%, one half of one percent of the single-family homes. Even if it were 100 scofflaws, that would still only make for 2% of homes. Doesn’t seem like such a problem to make laws for then, does it? The fact is that this ‘problem’ existed here throughout Whitehall’s history and existed when Whitehall was at its zenith? If it didn’t adversely effect our success then, why is it doing so now?
(Because its all really an excuse for the furtherance of corporate standardization)

Argument 4: Codes already existent in our books don’t give them the teeth to enforce the prohibition of junkyards and ‘parking lots’.

Counterargument 4: If ‘parking on grass’ solves all of that, then how will they see they’re on grass anymore than they can see anything now? Its still predicated on ‘plain view’ from right of way or neighbor government informants. The fact is, in my opinion, the ‘on grass’ reasoning is simply to give them impetus to check on something they couldn’t determine in the first place but, once its determined that the vehicle is on grass, then, the owner either has to move the vehicle onto impervious surfaces and if unable to do that or afford pouring concrete, will have to get rid of the vehicle. Once that initial ‘on the grass’ violation has been issued, then the city has a right to determine whether the violation has been remedied, at which point, using color of law, they can then determine the ‘junkiness’ of the vehicles they’ve been heretofore unable to determine. Bingo! 2nd infraction and goodbye junk! They say its for parking on grass but its really a backdoor means to get into your backyard for other purposes.

Argument 5: Its to protect property values.

Counterargument 5: Our government’s sole purpose for existing is to guarantee us our rights as outlined in the Declaration of Independence and Constitution. That is why there is ZERO mention of ‘property values’ in their sworn oaths of office. It is NOT their business, as our government, to concern themselves with the worth of citizen’s property. Shall I make them make a neighbor tear down a tree because its getting sap on my car, which is lowering its value? What about children’s colorful and/or bulky playground equipment in a neighbor’s yard, or trampolines? Or huge operable RV’s parked in driveways that people may find aesthetically unappealing? There are any number of ways in which other people’s yards and what they store in them can effect other’s ‘property values’. Where does our RIGHT to liberty end when balanced against other’s financial worth? Liberty is liberty is liberty.

Argument 6: Its a quality of life issue.

Counterargument 6: There are several arguments here. Former Council President Jim Graham noted that it should be a right to “enjoy the view from your backyard”. Mr. Graham, who has shown his ineptitude before in Constitutional matters
https://whitehallwatchblog.com/2015/11/02/the-petty-tyranny-of-whitehall-code-enforcement-part-five-city-council-edition/
here again continues to show that ineptitude. What you do have a ‘right’ to is the view of your backyard only. That’s where your ‘right’ stops. By his notion, anything within eyeball view of his backyard should be susceptible to his aesthetic determinations and therefore governmental intrusion, those irritations which may include skyscrapers, bat boxes, utility wires, bird nests or colors of homes or anything not within the aesthetic appeal of Jim Graham or anyone else who doesn’t like what’s in their neighbors yards. That is poppycock. You have ZERO right to a view past the lines of your property that aligns with your approval. ZERO. If all you want to see are trees and flowers and whatever pleases your personal wants, then make certain those fill YOUR property from stem to stern and that way, you won’t have to be bothered by what someone else decides they want to do with their own personal liberty on their own private property, PERIOD. You don’t like how someone else enjoys their liberty, buy some fast-growing bushes. Check these out:  
https://www.thespruce.com/fast-growing-shrubs-for-privacy-hedges-specimens-4767365
So too, if quality of life were really what was on their dockets, they’d concern themselves with our crumbling curbs and infrastructure, noise pollution, light pollution at night and the roaming massive trucks coming down our residential streets, that which I tried to help with legislation a few years ago, which Mayor Maggard summarily poo-pooed. The only quality of life this truly strives to improve is that of wealthy interests who need these individuals to clean up their ‘messes’ because its effecting their ability to make unlimited profits, and that includes all those whose business it is to buy property to rent out and maximize profit for themselves off the back of our community.

Argument 7: We have an obligation to do something about neighbor complaints/we represent all the people.

Counterargument 7: This from a Councilperson. While they can respond to complaints as best they can and within the law, their 1st, and most important obligation, is to the United States Constitution and its rights as guaranteed us in the Declaration of Independence, that which they have a sworn obligation to protect:
“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.”
So too, while they do represent all the citizen’s, their job is not to do whatever it takes to please all of them or even a majority. Their job is to do the just thing, specifically by our Supreme law, the US Constitution and our unalienable rights. There are any number of examples I could use throughout history where a majority of people wanted something and their government allowed it or complied with them which was wrong and unjust. History is riddled with the wrong of these appeasers but, their job is not about ‘what’s right for everybody’, its about serving the law and justice…and sense. When we only bring it down to the Benjamin$, we’ve lost our senses and our souls.

Argument 8: Junk cars attract rodents like Possums and Racoons.

Counterargument 8: Firstly, Raccoons are a mammal and Possums are a Marsupial Mammal. Secondly, I am sick and tired of God’s creatures, whose habitats we keep taking because we can’t control our own pro-creation, being characterized as vermin and rodents and as sources of germs and disease. Since I was a child, this city has had an abundance of wildlife: Racoons, Groundhogs, Squirrels, Possums, Bats, Pheasants (at one time), mice and now, because the habitat-incursion’s rings keep growing larger and larger into the country, we now have Deer, Cranes, Turkey Buzzards, Coyotes, Ducks, Hawks, Geese, etc. They are God’s creatures whom we SHARE this planet with. Without them…no people. As well, they exist whether there are junk cars in someone’s yard or not. They don’t exist because junk cars exist. That argument is frankly, stupid. To complain to their Councilors that there are ‘Raccoons and Possums’ in their yards or to think they can live anywhere without the inclusion of animals is, simply said…a fool.

Stop Treating Animals as “Invaders” for Simply Trying to Exist

Argument 9: Passing this legislation helps us be ‘good stewards of the Earth’/ Environmental issue with cars leaking fluids into the Earth.

Counterargument 9: While we should, indeed, all be ‘good stewards of the Earth’, and no one should be allowing toxic chemicals to seep into the ground,
a) this is an argument based on an assumption.
b) If there is suspected dumping of chemicals into the ground, there are already agencies who deal with that which can be contacted without adding more laws to our books:
https://www.epa.gov/pesticide-incidents/how-report-spills-and-environmental-violations
c) They’re so concerned with oil and antifreeze seeping into our ground but no concern over harmful pesticides daily soaking our planet or paints being rinsed down the drain or plastic choking our waterways and wildlife or salt runoff in the winter into our fresh-water channels or carbon-dioxide ingesting trees being cut back everywhere by power companies? This argument is meritless in comparison to truer issues of chemical waste and being better stewards of Mother Earth and merely illustrates how some are just grasping at straws to get passed what they want, regardless of its merit.

Argument 10: If they’re found to be parked on ‘pervious surfaces’, they’ll have to move them onto ‘impervious surfaces’ and if they don’t have them, store them at storage facilitie$$ or pour a concrete pad to $tore them.

Counterargument 10: What of those who can’t afford to store their vehicles elsewhere or pour impervious parking pads? The argument for a while now is that ‘if you can’t afford to keep it as we insist, then you shouldn’t own it’. That your right to things only goes so far as your ability to store/maintain it as your government, by law, has decided (the Corporate Standard). This makes owning anything for anyone of lesser means more and more beyond their grasp. That only people of certain means may own things. This is simply class warfare. The haves continuing to narrow the margin of liberty for the have-nots by defining for them what they may or may not own and enjoy. The Constitution is not a tool for the wealthy to marginalize people of lesser means, it is a document to thwart some from tyrannizing others.

Argument 11: The question was posited: “What do you want Whitehall to look like?”

Counterargument 11: This could be argued many ways. First of all, who gets to decide what Whitehall “looks like”? Because when you say that’s in a certain group of people’s right to define, then we can open this up to a number of possibilities by a number of different perspectives. We have certainly seen the ill-effects of groups of people dictating for everyone else ‘how a place should look’ goes and it never turns out well. Do the decisions we make for how we want Whitehall to look include people that aren’t like us? Foreigners? Others? People who aren’t ‘compliant’? Those who disagree with their government? People who support liberty over greed? Those who aren’t with the ‘corporate standard’ as foisted on us by designing elected officials?
You are not town founders, you are not the aesthetics police. You are the citizen’s representative in government, there by sworn oath of office to protect their guaranteed rights. First and foremost. End of story.

THE MAJOR POINT AGAINST ORDINANCE 002-2020 and 003-2020:

This point has been brought up but bears analysis here; that this legislation not only penalizes those who keep 16 vehicles in their backyard and who aren’t responsible neighbors and citizens but, also those who are guilty merely because they’re parking on grass (pervious surfaces) but who keep their vehicles tagged and registered and operable and who keep their yards and houses nicely. The legislation does not differentiate between these two citizens, nor could it. The 14th amendment to the U.S. Constitution has the Equal Protection clause, providing that no state shall deny to any person within its jurisdiction “the equal protection of the laws”. Meaning, were Whitehall to enforce this law for some (the irresponsible junk car people) but not others (the responsible tidy vehicle owners) they would not just be breaking the law but they would also be setting up our city for a lawsuit for denying citizens their civil rights.
As such then, the city is forced to either: enforce it unfairly (unlawfully) or force responsible owners to pony up money to either store their vehicles elsewhere or pay to put in a pad in their backyard (some of whom may not be able to afford that expense). For this reason alone, this legislation, certainly as is, should die the death it deserves, for its only outcome is punitive to good citizens or setting the city up for a lawsuit.