|
- Mona's nuisance ordinance is too broad and should be rewritten, according to some residents
|
By Myrna Trauntvein
Times-News Correspondent
The nuisance ordinance is a nuisance in and of itself according to some Mona residents.
"This new nuisance ordinance, I feel, goes beyond just trying to make Mona a shining star," said Diana Manseau.
Manseau asked, as did her husband, that the ordinance be put on hold until it could be rewritten. She requested a referendum on the ordinance.
Mike Stringer, acting mayor pro tem, said that common sense came into play in administering the ordinance.
Manseau said she thought the ordinance, if put into the wrong hands, could actually pit neighbor against neighbor and create backbiting, fighting, criticism and a sense of hostility one neighbor to another.
The ordinance went beyond trying to protect the common welfare of citizens.
Craig Allred said he also agreed. He was a general contractor who also did farming and wondered, the way the ordinance was written, if he would be penalized for his farming since he was not a full-time farmer.
"We have exempted traditional farming activities," said Cody Adams, council member.
He said that did not identify whether or not a person was a full-time farmer or not.
"I have read this ordinance several times in an effort to understand what the city council's purpose was in writing this ordinance," said Manseau, "although I understand that the city council feels they need some protection and legal standing in cases where citizens fail to heed to the council's requests or the safety of their neighbors."
She also objected to the charge of a Class "B" misdemeanor for each offense. She said that was too heavy and was the charge given for drug possession offenses.
There are three categories of misdemeanors in Utah. Class A misdemeanors are punishable by up to 1 year in jail and a fine of up to $2,500. Class B misdemeanors are punishable by up to 6 months in jail and a fine of up to $1,000. The punishment for Class C misdemeanors is up to 90 days in jail and a fine of up to $750.
Jim Orton said he thought that, rather than being administered by an inspector, it should be administered by a committee.
She said that her main objections were that it was full of ambiguous adjectives which could be interpreted in such a way that the very existence of some people in the community could be considered as a nuisance to other people.
"We should be concerned that there is no grandfather clause built into this ordinance," said Manseau.
She also said that, according to the wording of the ordinance, 70 to 80 percent of the homes in Mona could be considered to be in violation.
Mona residents, she said, have different background and even come from different cultures and have yet to come together to live in peace and harmony in our quaint little city.
Some residents came to Mona from cities, other from rural cities and towns and still others had lived in Mona for many generations.
"The uniqueness and quaintness of country life along with the close knit community is what has drawn us all here," she said.
She said the council should be concerned about a possible backlash financially through lawsuits which could bankrupt the town and, further, should be concerned that in a time of financial ruin in the U.S., many neighbors were already stretched to the limits and beyond just trying to hold onto their homes.
Paula Newton reminded those in attendance the ordinance was written by an attorney and should be adequate.
"This ordinance could and would further burden them financially, physically and mentally to a point that would break many citizens in our town," she said.
"It does not take money to get rid of weeds," said Lorraine Pack. "It just takes a shovel and labor."
Manseau said that the worst outcome of the ordinance is that, if a citizen does not abide by the decision of the city council, the can request that persona property have a lien put on it, in the form of a tax lien, which, after three years of inability to pay the tax lien, homes could be sold at public auction to pay the taxes.
Manseau had called, she said, the attorney general and he had said the words of the ordinance were "ambiguous."
Some of the key words and phrases to consider, she said, were: "indecent," "offensive to the senses," "noxious," "unsightly," "cause substantial diminution in the value of the other's properties," "unreasonable," "noise which either annoys, disturbs, injures or endangers the comfort, repose, health, peace or safety of others," "weed or noxious weed," "storage of old, unused, stripped and junked machinery, equipment or personal property of any kinds," "objectionable."
Even though the ordinance was drawn up by an attorney, said Gordon Anderson, council member, the council was aware that it might need to be tweaked by experience.
"An ordinance can be amended," he said.
Adams said he was not in favor of rescinding the ordinance because the city did need one in order to enforce violations which were serious. He did favor looking at some of the wording but that could be done with the document in place.
|
