AboutClarkston.com

[ALG Poster Boy]

A PHILOSOPHY OF PROPER CODE ENFORCEMENT POLICY


I believe that observance of the following policy regarding zoning ordinance violations would greatly uplift the well- being of Clarkston’s public culture and homeowners' enjoyment of their property.

1. Zoning ordinance violations should not be pursued by code enforcement, unless the infraction involves the erection of a structure, or a complaint by a neighbor. A lot of money can go, very quickly, into the erection of a structure, making them expensive to dismantle, should there be a citation and court order. It can be a tragic affair; full of anguish. A portable chicken coop on the other hand, along with chickens, can be removed in short order, without great financial damage to the owner.

2. Code enforcement should not pursue minor infractions that are not being complained about by citizens. This would allow the culture of the particular neighborhood to evolve in ways that may be more vibrant and progressive than accounted for in the zoning ordinance. If a property owner has a complaint over what another neighbor is doing, the complaint should be taken directly to the neighbor, before it goes to city code enforcement. This keeps city bureaucracy out of the matter. If the plaintiff neighbor goes to code enforcement first, code enforcement, as a policy, needs to instruct the plaintiff to go back to the offending neighbor. The two neighbors must attempt to work matters out on their own, which can involve an exchange of favors, concessions and modifications of the code violation behavior. City bureaucracy is very expensive and we are trying to keep taxes down. Less legwork by the code enforcement officer will save money. This policy promotes neighbors working with each other and, hopefully getting to know each other, and to become considerate of one another.

3. Code enforcement should not become involved in a code violation incident, unless the complaining neighbor expresses fear of bodily harm from the other neighbor. In that case, the code enforcement officer should accompany the plaintiff to an arranged meeting between the two, for a mediation process.

4. If the conflict cannot be resolved with the one on one meeting between plaintiff and violator neighbor, then the offending neighbor has another option to continue the activity that is in violation, and that is to arrange a meeting with other neighbors who would support him in the activity he wishes to continue. This meeting is attended by the code enforcement officer. If the plaintiff neighbor can be convinced to withdraw his complaint, then the issue can be laid to rest, with a withdrawal of the complaint to code enforcement.

5. Only after the entire above, codified process has taken place and with no mutual agreements, should code enforcement then resort to citation and court procedures.


Discussion:

Implementation of the above procedures will solve considerable shortcomings of the present code enforcement system, the biggest and most glaring of which is, that there are probably in this city of Clarkston, hundreds of ongoing violations which are addressed only by a process which I call “selective code enforcement”. It is not possible for code enforcement officers to cite all of the infractions they know about, all at once, because even if all of the paperwork could be simultaneously accomplished, there would be 200 hundred furious citizens who would be organizing tar and feathers the next day. Code enforcement knows that it can’t take this route with infractions, so they pick ‘em off one by one, based on whatever objective and subjective criteria they come up with. This IS the selective code enforcement process. The selection criteria though, often times involves political and personal agendas of city officials, against particular property owners. This is wrong. A far greater objectivity in the selection of which violators are to be acted against, is the consensus of the citizens whose enjoyment of their property have been violated by the infractions.

The present system of anonymous tip-offs for violations provides the perfect set-up for this evil of selective code enforcement. The reason being; that without code enforcement identifying the plaintiff/accuser to the violator, there exists the possibility of there having been no plaintiff at all, which means political targeting motives could be at work. And even if there is an actual plaintiff, anonymity can invite frivolous complaints, and complaints motivated out of a grudge.

Neighbors living and working with their neighbors, in getting used to the positive aspects of each other's little code violations can drive a public culture in a positive direction, as adeptly as an entire law firm (for example, Pond) that puts together a new zoning ordinance. The zoning ordinance should really be considered a work in progress to a limited extent, driven in part by the creativity of nonconforming uses. Property owners, on a day to day basis possess wisdom for the forging of a viable public culture.

Some may say that only the variance process should address this phenomenon. For certain cases, yes it should, (such as when erecting a structure is involved) and criteria should be developed to distinguish between when a variance should take place, over the non-selective code enforcement process just discussed.



It is amazing to me that a version of this code enforcement policy has not been a part of our zoning ordinance, especially since we just spent $60,000 on the new ordinance. We have simply accepted as gospel, a policy of selective code enforcement, which can do much harm. No perfect ordinance can be conceived of, by even the most insightful city planners, that can totally replace new and positive directions that citizens in experimentation with their own properties may be constantly working on.