** Updated Tuesday, 4/5/2005 **

Property Rights - Parking Ordinances

Our City Council created quite a stir when they decided to enact new ordinances that banned all forms of "recreational vehicles" from being parked anywhere in front of a residence, including the driveway.  The ordinances were intended to beautify the city by removing essentially any type of camper, trailer or trailer-mounted vehicle from public view.  They were deemed to be an "eyesore".  No consideration was given to exactly how many households would be affected by the rule changes or how they would impact residents.   City vehicles were exempt, of course.

The reaction was swift and overwhelming.  Residents that were aware of the measure instantly became interested in what was going on at City Hall.  Nearly every boat, Jet Ski, RV, camper and utility trailer had been banned since the majority were parked in driveways.  People who had been living in the area since before NRH even existed as a city were told to they had to comply or face fines up to $500 per day.  Despite the outcry, our Council was resolute and refused to budge until citizens replaced two of the members that favored the measure. 

I understand that some of you may not like seeing such vehicles parked in driveways.  Some of you I have talked to don't like any vehicles to be visible when not in use.  Everyone has opinions about how others should do things.  Nevertheless,  the city's approach was wrong and they were encroaching on the property rights of the citizens unnecessarily.  There were other remedies to this "problem" that were never considered and the citizens were never consulted before action was taken.  You may not own any sort of RV but, if you own any property in NRH, something similar could happen to you.  Put yourself in the other person's shoes for a moment and consider how you would like to be treated, then give him or her the same courtesy.

Update- Tim Welch Corrected

Tim Welch, my opponent for Place 7 and the incumbent in this year's Council race, states the following on his campaign website:

"I supported the revisions to the RV ordinance which were discussed at city council last year. The concern was safety in public streets and driveways."

This is a simply not true.  The parking ordinances were never about safety.  The explicitly stated purpose of the parking ordinances was to do away with what the Council considered, on its own, to be "eyesores".  Safety was never a "concern" until the Council met widespread opposition and needed a way to justify their actions.  The safety issue was contrived after the fact.  I understand Tim's desire to repackage his decision to vote for the ordinances but he will not be allowed to alter the facts to do so.   It seems the incumbents are still trying to find a justification for a very bad decision.

www.kerrywest.org © 2005