The Woodstock City Council went way out on a limb last October, when it voted to pass a special-use ordinance and allow farm animals at a residence within the city limits. The issue was whether to allow two large ducks (already defined in the City Code as "farm animals") to be at a residence in Woodstock.
What did the City Council do? It approved the ordinance recommended by the Plan Commission to allow the ducks, subject to three conditions. The most important condition was that the Savanna Grove Homeowners Association allow them. This meant that the Association would have to go through the formal steps of asking the property owners to approve an amendment to the Covenants. After any such approval, amended Covenants would have to be filed with the State of Illinois.
The process was time-consuming and not inexpensive. Any time you are dealing with legal issues and involve the time of an attorney, you are going to spend a lot of money. How much? They'll find out when they add up the total bills.
The voting has been concluded. The time has now passed for property owners to state whether or not they want the ducks there.
What will happen, if the Amendment allowing the ducks to the Covenants does not have property owner support? What if the homeowners do not approve the proposed Amendment to their Covenants?
For one thing the City Council will have egg all over its faces. Immediately after the City Council voted to approve the special use ordinance with the condition that the ducks not be in the City until the Homeowners' Association approved their being at the residence in question, Mayor Sager stated that the City would take no enforcement action against them, even though the ducks were already back at the residence after their brief vacation outside the City.
Did the Mayor have the consent of the other members of the City Council to order City employees to ignore the law they had just passed? How did he get that consent? It was not discussed in the public meeting. Did he (or the Council) even have the authority to do so? Why didn't even one of the other members of the City Council speak up?
Now more than 100 days have passed. Have the ducks been at the residence all this time, in violation of the City Code? Let's say, for example, that a daily citation with a $25 fine had been issued for each day of violation until any approval of the Amendment by the Homeowners' Association. That would be $2,500 in fines.
Let's say, further, that the property owners do not approve the Amendment. Will the City begin enforcing the law?
City employees must not be restricted from performing their lawful duties. They must be able to operate fairly and impartially toward each and every resident. To be so restricted strikes right at the heart of integrity of City operations.
Stay tuned for the final result of the vote. And for whether the City will actually enforce the law that it has ignored since October 3rd.
You never know who is interested…
3 months ago
7 comments:
No, not again.
The entire proverb reads "of three things the devil makes a salad; advocates tongues, notaries fingers and a third that shall remain nameless' I,m your huckleberry.
The voting is in, and the ducks are out. The vote of the property owners at Savanna Grove was not sufficient to pass the Amendment to allow the ducks to stay. Rumor has it that the ducks died. If so, I'm sorry for the little girl whose pets they were. But ducks are not, and never have been, intended to be domestic pets.
The important issues are 1) by what authority did the Mayor stay enforcement of the new ordinance? 2) was there prior agreement by the Council that the Mayor would make the statement that he did about no enforcement to take place? 3) if there was prior agreement, how did it take place so as not to be in violation of the Open Meetings Act? and 4) if there was no prior agreement, why did not even one City Council member object to the Mayor's statement?
Gus, what was it any of your business if the ducks stayed or went you don't live there. So do everyone a favor and stay out of their business
If you have read previous articles, my issue was not with the ducks. In fact, I thought the City was quite generous to enact a special-use ordinance to permit them. MY issue is with the decision to ignore the clear, immediate violation of the ordinance and to state that the City would not enforce its new law. The order was improper, at the least, and unethical and possibly unlawful, at the most. The City Council could have just told her she could have the ducks; instead, it gave her a way to have them and then closed its eyes. And THAT is what everybody should be concerned with!
My attorney explained to me this morning that my objection to the Mayor's order regarding non-enforcement of the just-passed ordinance is a political issue, not a legal one. It was not illegal for the mayor to order the City employees not to enforce the new ordinance. There is a concept of "prosecutorial discretion" that apparently allows the Chief Executive (for example, of the City; hence, the Mayor) to give such an order. The City Manager could have enforced the law, anyway. However, my guess is that he would have done so at the risk of incurring disfavor of those who have control over whether he keeps his job. More simply stated, he might have gotten fired.
The other members of the City Council could have spoken up immediately that night to challenge the Mayor's direction about non-enforcement, but they were silent and, by being so, condoned his direction.
Will this be a political issue in the future?
If your attorney said what the Mayor did was illegal, would you file a complaint against the City Gus?
Post a Comment