It is impossible for most municipalities to enforce their codes.

The enforcement of said codes usually boils down to a few things, none of which are pleasant — grumpy neighbors, tit for tat, and pet peeves of those doing the enforcing.

I cover the idea of grumpy neighbors extensively in my podcast, which features a segment every week about neighbors turning each other in for things, and people generally not having the decency to deal politely with one another, nor the fortitude to “endure” their neighbors’ hobbies or habits.

Today’s focus article proves that one aspect of code enforcement is simply the pet peeve of the code enforcement officer.

This article is about an officer who was let go, but that’s not the part of the article that we are focusing on today.

Please notice the huge picture of her with dozens of illegal signs that she has confiscated and the following words:

During last fall’s election season, Johnson made news when she began to enforce a new city ordinance regarding campaign signs.

Recently, she had increased enforcement efforts on rules against unlicensed business signage.

The lesson of the day is that most of us will go about our day today breaking a variety of laws without knowing it. We just have to hope that the laws we’re breaking aren’t one of the pet issues of the “authorities” in our towns.

This episode of the podcast covers a variety of topics. First up is a discussion about antibacterial soap and our societal desire to rid the planet of all unpleasantries, which evidently includes things like RVs parking in front yards, kids passing gas in school, and more!

Some links of interest:

Code Enforcement Sweep

Kids Expelled/Jailed for School Discipline Issues

White Boards Double as Shields

More Germs Found at Water Fountain than Toilet

Triclosan in Fresh Water Lakes

I’m not a flag waver, myself. Mostly that’s because the flag is too closely aligned with endorsement of the US government. At this point in my life, I consider myself patriotic, but not in the sense of blind obedience to the government.

However, it should be a person’s right to be able to fly a flag if they choose. They should be able to fly the US Flag, the Cherokee Nation flag, a Nascar flag, or whatever they want on their own property or at a business that they own.

A town in New Jersey has proposed banning flags.

The general sign regulations include references to flags, banners, and pennants. While they’re at it, they’re trying to ban “The ordinance would also ban signs affixed to the exterior of a window or glass, neon signs framing windows, and window and door signs that exceed 15% of the glass area.”

After all of that, it is unclear to me which signs would be allowed. They plan to vote on this Feb. 20th.

So, let’s say you violate your city’s municipal code. Most of us do. Usually, it’s things like taking the trash cans out too early or forgetting to register our pets on an annual basis. But, what if we have a junk car on our property? Of course, that is out of the question, especially if vegetables on the property are out of the question.

Now, cities are mulling the idea of whether they can have your goods removed from your own property if they deem the goods to be in violation of city code — this includes cars.

The proposed amendments, which sparked public outcry last October, give the county’s planning and zoning director authority to have derelict vehicles and buildings deemed a public nuisance removed from private property if the property owner does not comply with a notice of ordinance violation within 30 days. The cost of removal, holding of the vehicle, and disposal would be billed to the property owner and collected as county taxes are collected.

Ok, so perfect! Not only do they want to take your belongings from your property, they want to bill you for it! Even junk cars have value. If they didn’t have value or purpose, nobody would keep them. They might not be your idea of a nice thing to view, but that doesn’t mean we need to remove them just to make things look tidy.

Stealing is wrong. Stealing to improve the subjective aesthetic value of a community is still wrong.

In this episode, I talk about my recent trip to the dentist, a woman who called the police on The Salvation Army bell ringers, a dispute between some neighbors, and a warning from the CPSC about toxic laundry detergent.

Here are some relevant links:

A Woman Calls the Police On The Salvation Army

Corte Madera Neighbors at Odds

A Natural Consequence of the Nanny State is Calling the Police Too Much

CPSC Warns Not to Drink Laundry Soap

Why You’re Never Failing As a Parent

No. I am not regurgitating a story from a few  years ago. This is a new one…in a new town. Another person has been forbidden from growing vegetables. (The first story was from Oak Park, Michigan). The vegetables are against city code because they happen to be situated on the front lawn, rather than the back. Evidently, it is too unsightly to grow food. How barbaric! Doesn’t that poor homeowner know that civilized people don’t grow food? They buy it!

One of the best decisions you can make for the earth is to buy local, sustainable produce and meat. But, not in Oak Park or Orlando. In those towns, it is more important to keep up appearances and property values. Everyone knows that nearby vegetables always plummet the value of surrounding homes.

“I don’t want to send anybody to jail, but I do like people to follow orders,” Howell said. “All I wanted to see was that you were working diligently to clean up the mess. Again, I tried to keep you out of jail.”

Here are some pictures of my neighbors’ back driveway (facing the alley):

a pile of mulch, covered with a tarp

some carpet, part of a mattress, etc

Here’s the story: A few days ago, my neighbors were issued a warning for a city code violation. The warning read that they were in violation of cide code 6.0 22 1994. Here is a picture of the notice:

Maybe I’m bad at reading handwriting, but that code violation seems to start with a six. Even though all of the codes are online, I cannot find one with that particular number. I even have a printed copy of the codes, and I don’t see that number. In fact, the codes online do not even contain a section 6. It literally skips from section 5 to section 7. Take a look:

So, instead of going by the number, let’s go by the supposed infraction — permitting the accumulation of waste or recyclables. When I search the code for that, I find that section 95.01 of Title I indicates the following:

If any person maintains, uses, creates, causes, places, deposits, leaves or permits a nuisance to be or remain on any property, that person violates this section. The following list includes, but does not limit, the conditions constituting a nuisance under this section:

(1)     Accumulations of rubbish, trash, refuse, junk and other  abandoned materials, metals and lumber;

(2)     Harborage of rats, mice, snakes and other vermin;

(3)     Disagreeable or obnoxious odors and stenches, as well as the conditions, substances or other causes which give rise to the emission or generation of those odors and stenches;

(4)     Carcasses of animals or fowls, not disposed of within a reasonable time after death;

(5)     Buildings, structures or other places and locations where any violation of federal, state or city law is conducted, maintained or performed; and

(6)     Accumulations of stagnant water.

So, now I refer you back to the two pictures at the beginning of this post. One is a picture of a pile of mulch. I certainly would not call this an accumulation of ”rubbish, trash, refuse, junk and other abandoned materials, metals and lumber.” It’s a nice, tidy pile of mulch…and it’s even covered. But, the city warning does indicate the accumulation of wood and hay as being problematic. I guess anything can be considered an “abandoned material” these days.

So, what about the other pile? It’s not nearly as tidy and nice. Actually, it is kind of junky. Exactly. That’s why my neighbors called the city to do a special garbage pickup. In my town, you can request this kind of thing if it is too large for normal pickup. The only problem is that they have been extremely slow in coming to get the items. So, in the meantime, one of their own officers issues a warning that it’s there! Incredible.

Now, this isn’t one of the major injustices of our time, but it is pretty darn stupid. Don’t people have anything better to do?

I also can’t help but point out the poor grammar in the warning.

If not corrected by August 4th, 2012, the City of Marion will take legal action against you to enforce it’s ordinance.

While I am not above reproach on these issues, I would like to remind people that it’s is a contraction that stands for “it is.” Now read that sentence again. That apostrophe should not be there.

In Clearwater, Florida, city officials are locking park bathrooms and removing access to power outlets to discourage the homeless from using these things. Officials have even asked for the removal of a hose that the homeless are using for water. Of course, this does nothing to solve the problem. It only cuts the homeless off from their sources of comfort.

Slashing urban amenities is the city’s latest step in making it tougher to live on the street. The city’s homelessness consultant, Robert Marbut, said street survival guides and “renegade” food giveaways only served to discourage the homeless from seeking real help.

Government speak translation: Don’t help homeless people. It only encourages them to continue to be homeless. If you make their lives too easy, they will never get real jobs like the one I have that is paid for by the taxpayers. If they are not getting help from another government agency that needs to continue to justify its existence, they aren’t really getting help at all.

The city’s new homeless initiative pushes for more engagement in services such as job training at facilities such as Safe Harbor, the Pinellas County Sheriff’s Office’s homeless shelter next to the jail.

Some of the city’s tough-love policies have already met with resistance. Earlier this year, Horne and Marbut called for discouraging donations to the St. Vincent de Paul soup kitchen. That idea was shelved after public backlash.

Government speak translation: We cannot tolerate people living on the streets. It bothers some of our taxpayers, and they are the ones responsible for paying our salaries. We want to make them go somewhere else, so we’ll cut anything that helps them in any way. When people get upset, we’ll give them one stupid example of an alternative to keep them quiet. We’ll encourage them to go into job training, and ignore the fact that they need food and water before they can even consider getting a job. But, when we go too far, we’ll back down because that also upsets the taxpayers.

By the way, while all of this is happening, the city officials are not considering the unintended consequences. If the bathrooms are locked, won’t people just use the great outdoors? How is that better than allowing them access to the facilities?

People in the town have complained that the homeless are using the facilities for drug use, sleeping, and prostitution. Of course, when we see something we don’t like, we can imagine all kinds of terrible scenarios. I’m thinking that the most common use is sleeping. We imagine all kinds of threats when someone lives a lifestyle that we don’t understand or agree with. We fear things that are different. Anyway, if that’s the case — if the restrooms are really being used for prostitution, it seems like the police would not simply block the door, they would send in a team to bust the operation. They’d probably even dress up one of their own officers to solicit such services.

Please remember that the government is not your friend. At this moment, when a homeless person is bothering you, the government officials might seem like the solution. But, if anything horrible happens to the economy that lands you on the streets, you will be the one being cut off from water while they simply encourage you to do some job training. You will be the one suspected of being a drug addict simply because you are a little dirty. Then, you will wish for a little “renegade” food giveaway to supply your next meal. May it never be so.

It’s been a while, but some of you may remember me writing about the man in Idaho who was forbidden by police from wearing his bunny suit in public.  Now, I read a story about police in Florida dressing in bunny suits in order to check traffic for people not wearing their seat belts.  Don’t they know that could frighten children?  And what about the fact that so many new rules and regulations are foisted upon us in the name of safety?  Isn’t a giant bunny on the side of the road at least as much (if not more) of a distraction as eating or talking on the phone?  The article indicates that the program has been very successful so far.

In just two hours, 50 motorists were cited.

Maybe that will make up for the salary of the undercover officer and the cost of the bunny suit itself.