Woodstock Code Enforcement – Part 2

In December the topic of Code Enforcement in Woodstock was opened here. To read it, click on December 2007 and scroll down to December 15.

What happens when a resident reports a City Code violation that is visible from the street? Examples of common violations are vehicles parked for long periods of time without being moved. You can tell which ones. They are covered with snow, and there are no tracks in the snow in front or, or behind, the vehicle.

Or a car or truck parked in the front yard on the grass. Or it’s a pick-up truck, full of trash and garbage. Or it’s a minivan full of boxes and newspapers, including boxes piled high in the driver’s seat.

Or it might be an accumulation of trash bags along the side of the house or on a deck of the house.

Or it might be a stack of tires or a pile of exercise equipment and lawnmowers stashed on the property.

Presumably, all a resident has to do is notify Code Enforcement of the problem, and the City takes over. A resident can telephone Code Enforcement at (815) 338-4300 or send an e-mail to CodeEnforcement@woodstockil.gov A file will be opened for the complaint, and the Code Enforcement Officer (CEO) will visit the property. A computerized tracking system is used to track code violations.

A complaint can be filed by any resident. The City maintains confidentiality about the name of the person who complained.

This confidentiality hasn’t always been the case. Until about two years ago the City’s policy was to reveal the name of the Complainant to the party about whose property a complaint was registered. Even when the violation was clear from the street, if the violator asked for the name, he was given the name, phone number and/or email address of the person who complained.

When I learned of this practice more than three years ago, I complained to the City that the policy was wrong and asked the City to get an opinion from the City Attorney. The City did, and the opinion of the City Attorney was that the Complainant had no right to privacy. And that opinion was wrong!

I myself can personally handle any telephone call or email I receive. But, was it fair to the 90-year-old neighbor of a trashy household, if her name was given to the tenant responsible for the trash and clutter next door? Would she fear retaliation or retribution for siccing the City on her neighbor? Would she refuse to contact the City, if she knew her name would be revealed? You bet!

After the new police chief came to town and mentioned at one of his early Coffees with the Chief that a complainant’s identity would not be revealed (by a police officer responding to a call; ex., a loud-music complaint), I asked the City to again seek a legal opinion from the City Attorney’s office. This time the opinion was that a resident DOES have the right to privacy, and now the policy is that a complainant’s name will not be revealed when the CEO makes the contact with a suspected violator of the City Code.

After the complaint is logged, the CEO will visit the property to determine whether a violation exists. If it does exist, then he will contact the party believed to be responsible for the violation. If the house is a single-family, owner-occupied dwelling, the CEO will contact the owner. If it is a rental property and if the CEO believes the tenant is responsible for the violation, he will first contact the tenant to try to resolve the violation and bring the property back into compliance with the City Code.

The City of Woodstock takes a “friendly” approach when addressing violations of the City Code by first making a personal call on the presumed violator. The purpose is to discuss the Code, explain the violation and to request action to remove the violation.

A Notice of Violation (NOV) is issued to establish the violation. In many cases, the violation is promptly corrected, and that’s the end of it. The NOV is then merely a record and no further action is needed.

What happens if the violation is not corrected? More information will follow soon.