government

At the August 12th Culver Town Council meeting there was follow-up discussion on properties in town that “should be cleaned up”.  The goals are laudable, though I’m aware there are extenuating circumstances in some cases mentioned.  In other cases, it’s a personal decision and I’m not sure how far we should go with that.  Many subdivisions have covenants that stipulated what color your house can be, what color your curtains can be and how long a vehicle can sit in your driveway.  Neighborhood covenants are one thing since they are usually developed before people move in and are modified with the consent of the neighborhood association.  Aesthetic choices are personal and I do take some issue to having those applied after the fact.  While there should be limits on a property being allowed to become dangerous, I think there is some danger of trampling personal property rights when aesthetics are dictated.

As with all things, the Town Council needs to be cognizant of unintended consequences.  They had a recent dispute on mowing with a property owner, so part of their discussion revolved around setting a maximum height for grass.  The owner in question stated that in lieu of a lawn, he had a naturalized habitat with native plants.  The Town made the judgment that this area was overgrown weeds and forced them to be mowed.  Does that mean they’re going to require lawns?  There are at least two properties in town that have planting beds in lieu of lawn.  Who will determine whether those plants are acceptable?  Who will determine if there is too much planting area and not enough lawn?  Who will determine whether the grass is decorative (like some at our office and at the Town Hall) and therefore exempt from the height ordinance?  In late summer when most lawns go dormant, will the random stalks of Buckhorn result in mowing orders?  Part of the most recently annexed property on the south side of town has been left fallow.  It’s currently returning to somewhat of a native prairie habitat.  Will that be illegal?  I may have to rethink my willingness to have some of my property annexed…

The discussion also went into the condition of buildings with people wanting enforcement of standards that included missing shingles and boarded up windows… clearly aesthetic issues, not safety issues.  I found that discussion amusing considering we were sitting in the Town Hall… a building that currently has missing shingles, a gutter hanging loose on the front and boarded up openings on the north and south.  (Would the bird’s nest visible in the picture to the left be considered vermin?  There was another complaint about building openings allowing vermin to enter…)

A quick drive past the Water Plant and you can see an overhead door that is off track and not closed completely.  Drive up to the entrance of the Sewer Plant and you’ll see a deteriorating shingle roof on a shed roof adjacent to the tanks.    Drive by the Town’s Sewer Lift Station on Madison Street and you can see a boarded up window on the back side.  (Does paint make it okay?  How will you define when a boarded up window is objectionable?)

None of these things particularly bother me.  What bothers me is that my property would not meet the standards being discussed and it seems unreasonable that the Town would exempt themselves.  Easterday Construction has buildings with openings that are boarded up.  We have a pole building that has access under the doors.   Might the Town want to get its own house in order before pointing fingers?

I’m sure when I bring some of these things up, I’ll get the standard, “That’s not what I meant!  You’re twisting my words…  You know what I mean!”  Uh, huh…  But when you try and define it in legally enforceable language, it takes on a new life.  Unintended Consequences…