The new nuisance ordinance about to be passed has been worked through with the local REALTORS® and their attorney and fortunately, many of the changes we proposed were taken to heart and either accepted or further modified and made somewhat palatable.
Automobiles that are not junk but for what ever reason are not licensed are no longer considered inoperable, and therefore are not a nuisance. Beautiful ski boats or bass boats on trailers also got a reprieve from the “lets all look alike” police. It may just be that we are close to offending all a little but not any one too much. Certain time lengths will be maintained regarding shade tree mechanic jobs, and so far it is still legal to paint your house any color you want, as long and no words are legible and it might be a good idea if all paintings of women are displays in full attire.
Finale touches are being made to the newest draft with particular instructions to staff to incorporate all the crazy freedoms that some of us insisted on including. For instance you may still park your $180,000 RV behind or next to your $120,000 home. It is now and has always been legal to have a small trailer and you can park it in the grass, just not in the front yard grass anymore. I am not sure if that trailer is allowed to have anything in it or not, but future interpretations will tell.
I am very concerned, however about one important part of the ordinance. I am concerned about the flowers in the neighbor’s yard to the west. See, if a 40 foot long and 12 foot high RV is allowed to park in the side or back yard, and the sun continues to rise in the East, and the flowers morning sunshine is blocked by that RV, the flower’s growth cycle may be stunted and effected negatively. I truly am afraid that could affect the overall viewscape of the neighborhood and the delicate psyche of some of our children. We should consider a change to the ordinance that would in effect not allow any party to build a house that would be due east of any existing house. Yeah, that would do it.
Also, some people don’t like children. It has been propose that any children be required to play in designated sections of the rear yard and said sections should be screened so as to minimize the visual exposure to the general public. Any non-motorized children's vehicles should remain within said designated sections of the yard and only be allowed to move from the designated sections of rear yards along connective trails. In order to effect this potion of the ordinance some portions of every rear yard will necessitate confiscation in an attempt to create the visual boundary trails to be utilized by these unsightly youths.
Personally, I do not agree with the unsightly youths clause. Why should the city allow those rug rats to be outside at all?
Disclaimer… some portions of this posting are meant to be sarcastic. If you have difficulty identifying the sarcasm, you might consider running for office.
1 comment:
It sounds to me like some portions of this ordinace are unenforceable at best, some may even violate personal rights. I can understand some of what the city is attempting but I think they need to keep it in perspective. I can see not allowing bull dozers, back hoes and tractor trailers in residential areas for an extended period of time but how do they intend to enforce the sections that are contradictory? I would encourage the city to review subdivision restrictions arlready in place and see how they are working before putting together some crazy ordinance that they can't possibly enforce or will cause legal action.
Post a Comment