At last night’s Woodstock City Council meeting I addressed them on the topic of the infamous ducks, Jenny and Bean, which are believed to be back in residence at 1552 Cord Grass Trail in the Savanna Grove community.
In particular, I requested the Council to direct enforcement of the existing City Code section that prohibits farm animals, including ducks, within the city limits of Woodstock. I am sympathetic to the four-year-old granddaughter of the woman who bought a house in that community without reading the Covenants of the Savanna Grove Homeowners Association, but her property is in violation of the City Code if the ducks are still there.
I explained that City Attorney Richard Flood had stated two weeks ago, as recorded in the Minutes of the October 2, 2007, City Council meeting, “that the purpose of the amendment (Special Use Ordinance) is to remove the City from the process and allow the Homeowners Association to make their [sic] decision.” That statement of Mr. Flood is partially correct. It does remove the City, but only after the Homeowners Association takes positive action to change its Covenants and to permit the ducks at that home. Unless and until the Homeowners Association does so, the existing City Code applies, and this means No Ducks.
It is my understanding that, in the two weeks since the Special Use Ordinance was passed, no citations have been issued against the offending ducks. Since Woodstock has a law on the books prohibiting them, one has to question why there has been no enforcement.
After I spoke, Mayor Sager stated quite emphatically that, reminding me that I had been at the October 2nd City Council meeting and had heard him say then, it was the intent of the City Council that the City would no longer take an interest in the ducks.
The contingency in the Special Use Ordinance provides that the ducks cannot be on the property until the Homeowners Association approves. Or, as the Ordinance reads, “The two ducks, specifically known as Jenny and Bean, shall only be permitted to be kept on the property, pursuant to the Savanna Grove Homeowners Association approval…”
Therefore, until that approval is granted (this might take 2-3 months and there is no guarantee that it will ever be approved), the ducks are not permitted. And, if they are not permitted but are there (and they were there when Mrs. Miller stood before the Council on October 2 and agreed that they would not be there until the Homeowners Association approved), why isn’t the City taking enforcement action?
The BIG question is, can the City Council direct, order, require, or influence a City employee (or department or administrator) to ignore, overlook or otherwise disregard a City Ordinance and avoid enforcement against a violation that surfaced because of a complaint made to the City about the presence of the ducks? Can it?
Obviously, it can and has. BUT, is it legal to do so?
The City Attorney, Richard Flood, was not at the October 16th City Council meeting, but a representative of his office was there.
Is it the obligation of the City Attorney to step forward and inform the City that they cannot avoid enforcing the law? Or must he wait to give his opinion until he is asked for it. Speak, only when spoken to? We learned this as kids or, at least, some of us were told that from time to time.
I asked for fair and firm enforcement; you know, equal justice for all. Gee, what a concept! How can the City pick and choose which laws to enforce? Should it only enforce certain laws? Or only against certain people? Or not against certain people?
A friend this week said, “Isn’t it a shame, with so many U.S. soldiers dying in Iraq, that we are worrying about ducks in someone’s back yard?” That person is absolutely right.
There shouldn’t be any “worry” at all about the ducks. The Code Enforcement Officer should be there every day with his ticket book. Just write the ticket and meet Mrs. Miller in court. There doesn’t have to be any antagonism. She is violating the law, so let her answer for it and pay the fines. When her granddaughter asks why the City is being so mean, she can just say, “They aren’t being mean, honey. We are breaking the law, and so we have to pay for it.”
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
6 comments:
It's really a shame that with all that is happening in the world that this is all YOU have to worry about.
Please don't miss the point of what I'm really worried about. It's not about the ducks. It's about the lack of responsibility on the part of the City Council (all seven of them) to represent all of us and uphold the laws of the City of Woodstock. If the Council wanted to forgive the presence of the ducks, all they had to do was strike Section 2 (A) and leave out the contingency requiring approval of the homeowners association. Then, and only then, would it be solely up to the homeowners association to resolve the problem in relation to its Covenants. Instead, the Council wrote in Section 2 (A) and by stating its "intent" destroyed the credibility, integrity and authority of the Code Enforcement Officer.
I for one would like to be left out of your "all of us".
Stop it you fool, your just making a bunch of extra work for someone in city staff who is not even the subject of your complaints.
Just for a moment let your imagination run wild....Gus as Code Enforcement Officer. Does it make a shiver run down your spine? Don't laugh it off it could happen!
Now there is really a scary thought, but not to worry. It'll never happen. As for making a bunch of extra work for some City employee, just call it Job Security. If I never called one more Code violation to the attention of the great C.E.O. who handles them, he'd still be overworked.
Post a Comment