[RP TownTalk] Ordinance 2014-OR-01

[Jonathan Ebbeler]

James -

It is an inaccurate statement to say that the proposed Ordinance was only made public within the last several days.  It, by law, has to and was read into the record at a televised public meeting on 1/6/2014.  It was also discussed at length at the next publically broadcasted meeting last Monday.  The record on this Ordinance has been open for comment for a month not for the several days purported.  If changes are requested to how Ordinances are presented, please work with your CM to draft a charter amendment to this end.

As has been illustrated, there is no economic or other burden placed upon any resident through this Ordinance.  The Ordinance does not require any resident to do anything or incur any costs.  The only impact the Ordinance could have is upon allowable material of new side and rear fences.  As has been presented there are numerous materials that are routinely used in town that are at par for cost or actually cheaper - so what burden precisely does the Ordinance create economic or otherwise?

I understand that you hold an opinion that regulations should be driven by a need or public safety but I believe the current law disagrees with this interpretation.  As stated before, a primary role of Council is to minimize risk of lawsuits since the cost is a public burden.  Removing ambiguity in the code and situations where  Council is forced to interpret on a case-by-case and potentially contradictory manner is part of the obligation of being "necessary for the good government of the town."

I do my best to answer your questions in a direct and straightforward manner.  I disagreed with the premise presented for the how/why Ordinances may be introduced and pointed to the section of law that governs the question.  I respect that you consider referencing the Charter as spin, but that section and others are what Council swears an oath of office to uphold and I believe contradicts the need/safety premise presented.  Potential conflict of interpretation leaves the town open to litigation, it is not a question of if, but when we end up spending taxpayer money defending a situation that could be administratively addressed through Ordinance.  If you disagree with my premise or opinion, please indicate what part of Section 301 requires the limited interpretation claimed.

Respectfully,

Jonathan

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://riverdale-park.org/pipermail/towntalk/attachments/20140201/ec1a570d/attachment.html>