[RP TownTalk] Ordinance 2014-OR-01

[James D. Holmes]

Kathy

I applaud your response to the burden placed on the residents of 
Riverdale Park of over regulating by our Town Officials.  Did you know 
that a Council member in 2010 was planning to introduce an ordinance 
concerning outdoor drying of laundry.  The Council Member wanted to 
prohibit clothes-lines.

The proposed ordinance (2014-OR-01) was only made public within the last 
several days.  Now it is on the agenda to be voted on by the Council at 
the Monday night meeting.  When I suggested that the Riverdale Park 
Council should table this ordinance and ask for comments from the 
residents, I heard no response except a spin by one of our elected 
officials.

I believe that any regulation should be driven by a need or public 
safety issue.  When I asked the sponsor of this ordinance to specify the 
need or public safety issue, I was given the following response.

*I still do not follow the continued statement in regards to public need 
or safety concern.  I would direct you to read Section 301 -- General 
Powers of our Charter that delineates the reasons 'why' Ordinances may 
be passed that expand well beyond public need and/or safety:***

**

*§ 301:  General Powers***

**

*The council shall have the general power to pass all such ordinances 
not contrary to the Constitution and laws of the State of Maryland or 
this charter as it may deem necessary for the good government of the 
town; for the protection and preservation of the town's property, 
rights, and privileges; for the preservation of peace and good order; 
for securing persons and property from violence, danger, or destruction; 
and for the protection and promotion of the health, safety, comfort, 
convenience, welfare, and happiness of the residents of and visitors in 
the town.  All legislative powers that may be exercised by the town 
under the laws and the Constitution of the State of Maryland are vested 
in the council.*


J. Holmes






-------- Original Message --------
Subject: 	[RP TownTalk] Chain link fences- my thoughts
Date: 	Sat, 1 Feb 2014 06:40:13 -0800 (PST)
From: 	kathy galleher <kgalleher at yahoo.com>
Reply-To: 	kathy galleher <kgalleher at yahoo.com>
To: 	towntalk <towntalk at riverdale-park.org>



I don't want to wade into the back-and-forth in yesterday's listserv, 
but I would like to share my thoughts about the ordinance itself.  I 
can't make it to the meeting this Monday night, so I wrote my councilman 
but in case others are reading, but I wanted to share my input. I am 
against the ordinance banning chain link fences in back/side yards. If I 
had lived here in '98 I would have objected to banning them in people's 
front yards too!

I really value a minimal approach to regulation- one that sets up the 
town to serve everyone's common good while leaving them at maximum 
liberty as to how they carry out their daily activities, as long as it 
doesn't infringe on the well being of others.  Things like lawn 
maintenance and house painting all are in that middle zone- what makes 
for enough liberty for one person and yet maintains a nice-looking 
neighborhood.  But I'm really opposed to regulations that enforce one 
group's aesthetic values on everyone else.  Several family members live 
in 'better off' neighborhoods and I shudder at the level of Home Owner 
Association interference I see (what color your shutters can be).  The 
chain link ordinance is an example of this kind of over-reach of 
regulation.  The explanation offered notwithstanding, I really can see 
no legitimate interest that the town has in what kind of materials 
people choose for fencing in their back yards and side yards.  I think 
it's inappropriate to legislate this.

For what it's worth, I  WANT to live an an economically diverse 
neighborhood, where people who are better off and less well off live 
together.  I cringe when people are throwing around 'makes the 
neighborhood look impoverished'.  I hope that we are a welcome community 
for both rich and poor and not be embarrassed if one neighbors car or 
fences (?!) indicate they don't have a lot of money.  It doesn't mean 
they won't keep their houses beautiful and be great neighbors. It just 
means they don't have a lot of money. If people need fences, I don't 
want to burden them with additional expenses for what seems like a silly 
aesthetic preference.

Personally, I think that the current trend in my neighborhood 
(permitting 6 foot high wooden slat fences) does more to deteriorate the 
'neighbor'hood than a chain link fence ever could.  When we can't see 
each other, we don't meet each other and talk.  My fantastic 
relationship with my next door neighbor flourished because we have a 
3.5foot chain link fence in our backyards, and would strike up a 
conversation when working in the yard. My friends live in a tightknit 
community in NE in rowhouses where only chain link separates the back 
yards.  He talks about how important the permeable fences have been to a 
sense of community.  SO I realize not everyone will share my  point of 
view on this, but I actually VALUE having chain link fences (yes, yes, I 
know, ... the other materials proposed could still permit 
conversation).  My preference: Please don't legislate against them further.
Sincerely
Kathy Galleher


-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://riverdale-park.org/pipermail/towntalk/attachments/20140201/f7df1595/attachment.html>