Former senator feels she is not getting answers on litter proposal

As the Feb. 6 deadline to comment on the litter ordinance approaches, it is important to know exactly how, and to what, we address those comments. As you know I, along with others, have attended four meetings to try to understand the need for what you propose to do. Three of those  were public hearings, plus the most recent meeting in Troy on Jan. 21.

Some of us have traveled more than 500 miles to ask questions and make our voices heard on regulations causing concern to property owners.

Granted, the general public is pretty much unaware of the layers upon layers of regulations that already exist in state law, and first reading of the proposed ordinance raised much indignation. That being said, the inadequate reasons being given by county spokespersons for passage of the ordinance are adding to that indignation. Questions multiply, rather than being resolved.

Although I have twice asked of you a question, you cannot or will not answer. It has not been my intention to embarrass you, but as a constituent, I believe we all deserve substantive answers.

The question is simply: What can you do with the proposed ordinance in place that you cannot do now?  A “non” answer from you either indicates you do not know, or do not wish to explain.

Even as a commissioner you must know that your standard reply,  that  County Attorney Bernie Cassidy says it is necessary,  is sadly inadequate to alleviate the  concerns of those who fear their rights will be compromised by provisions in  the document. If this is about Bernie, and performance of his job, then as our county attorney, he should write an opinion setting forth specifc reasons we can understand. (Some have claimed at hearings that “Bernie” has  been unable to enforce litter ordinances under current law.) So, is this  something to do with the statute of limitations relative to prior complaints filed?

Is it critical to pass this ordinance, or is it as Commissioner Tony Berget indicated to  a recent inquirer, simply a trivial, time-consuming chore?  Now, other  really pertinent questions arise since the Troy meeting.

We were told at the Troy meeting that it was not a public hearing, but  a meeting of the “working group.” Those apparently outside the loop wish to know who at the meeting comprised members of the working group, when they were appointed, and how many times they have met?  Were all communities in the county represented in that group?  

Why was  a new set of definitions included in the text at the working group meeting that did not appear on copies provided at the previous public hearings?  

Will citizens  attending prior hearings on the ordinance be afforded an opportunity to  comment on this new draft of the proposal?

Redrafting of the ordinance just days before the comment period ends, seems particularly inappropriate when all concerned individuals will not have had opportunity to study it.  One startling change appears to be classifying as litter “non-functioning appliances, implements, campers, mobile homes,” etc. that cannot or will not be made to function in their originally intended capacity within a year’s time.”

Section (d) indicates that authorities could come upon your property to inspect whatever is confined within a fence, man-made enclosure or covered by a tarp, to determine if it falls within the definition of litter. This, at very best, can only be termed an invasion of privacy.

During this economic downturn, this ordinance has the potential to  work real hardship on the elderly or those unemployed who are not  financially able to license or repair their property within a year’s time.

Raising the penalty from $10 to $200 per violation and each day in  non-compliance an additional $200 can be punitive for those unable to  speedily pay fines.

If this ordinance,  driven by “say so” of our county attorney, is only  assembling litter laws in one place for his convenience, is it worth  generating the volume of concern we are witnessing?  Most say a big “No!”

And in the next breath ask: “What are the real reasons for adoption of the litter and now decay ordinance?”

Is it your intent for this new proposal to replace other county ordinances? If so, which ones?

It appears that you may be hung out to dry for no significant  reason? Hopefully, Bernie will come up with some concrete answers before Feb. 6, and, hopefully, all will be able to comment on the newest version of your proposal. It is their right.

(Aubyn Curtiss is a retired state senator from District 1.)