We are not a covenant community and I don't favor transforming Los Alamos into a covenant community. The new nuisance ordinance would do just that. I support the existing provisions in our county code that prohibit the acculumation of rubish and refuse on residential property. Furthermore I support our existing regulations that declare as unlawful the accumulation of weeds or grasses that constitute a fire or safety hazard. These are exactly the kind of regulations that should be enforced for the benefit of the public.
The new draft nuisance ordinance broadly expands the number of regulations that the county would need to enforce. I don't feel it is prudent for us to adopt the International Property Maintenance Code because there are several provisions of this code that are far too restrictive. A significant number of homes in our community do not meet the international standard and as I see things we would need to significantly expand our county workforce in order to deal with all the violations that would arise under the new draft nuisance ordinance. We shouldn't go down this path.
I am not comfortable requiring our citizens to maintain 6 inch lawns or to insist that all RVs be parked on paved driveways. I can not support giving county employees the right to enter private property without the owner's consent to perform work on the property related to violations of the new ordinance. This provision alone has the potential to cause a great deal of conflict in our community and create unforseen problems. Furthermore I feel that a sentence of up to 90 days in jail for a third time offense is too severe.
These are all good reasons by themselves for us to reject the proposed new draft nuisance ordinance, but for me the most compelling reason is that I envision that this ordinance will not be applied equally to all. This far reaching ordinance will be enforced for some and not for others. Furthermore the ordinance allows for waivers to be granted. Some individuals will receive waivers and others will not. Good public policy should be applied uniformly to all without exceptions. I don't believe this will be the case with the new ordinance , and this will be another source of conflict and division in our community.
Our community is fortunate to accomodate a diverse set of lifestyle choices. I don't believe we should legislate the lifestyle choices of our citizens. I favor common sense nuisance regulations that promote fire prevention and public safety. The new draft nuisance ordinance is more about controlling lifestyle choices than fire prevention and public safety. The Council should reject this proposed new nuisance ordinance.
Tuesday, October 19, 2010
Our Citizens Deserve a Chance to Vote on Muni Building Petition
Listening to the arguments made by Mr. Richard Hannenmann this evening at the council meeting I feel that we should allow his petition, calling for the county to restore the original municipal building at its original location, to go to the voters. I trust the legal opinion of our County Attorney Randy Audio on these matters more than anyone else. Although there may be a valid argument for the petition being an illegal initiative under NM law, Council is not a court of law and I am not comfortable declaring the petition illegal. Only a court should decide the legality of this petition.
I agree with Mr. Hannenman that it is appropriate to move forward and have the election. If the voters approve the petition and an interested party wishes to challenge the legality of this initiative than after the election that party can seek a judgement in the appropriate court of law. Furthermore under these circumstances a clear legal conflict would exist and the court would be required to hear the case and render an opinion.
I feel that we have gone array on Council. We have an opportunity to rebuild trust between the Council and the community this evening by allowing the special election to take place. There is no better way to judge public opinion than by the voting that takes place on election day. At the very least this election will give us a clear indication of what the community wants with regards to a municipal building even if the result proves not to be legally binding. We should always welcome this kind of public input. We should give our citizens a chance to vote on this petition.
I agree with Mr. Hannenman that it is appropriate to move forward and have the election. If the voters approve the petition and an interested party wishes to challenge the legality of this initiative than after the election that party can seek a judgement in the appropriate court of law. Furthermore under these circumstances a clear legal conflict would exist and the court would be required to hear the case and render an opinion.
I feel that we have gone array on Council. We have an opportunity to rebuild trust between the Council and the community this evening by allowing the special election to take place. There is no better way to judge public opinion than by the voting that takes place on election day. At the very least this election will give us a clear indication of what the community wants with regards to a municipal building even if the result proves not to be legally binding. We should always welcome this kind of public input. We should give our citizens a chance to vote on this petition.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)