At the September City Council meeting, there was a two-hour long discussion on complaints of violations of city ordinances which included mowing grass onto the street, overgrown grass and weeds in yards, junk cars and dilapidated houses. Councilman Dwight Lobberecht commented that one way to eliminate these complaints, which require the city to take some kind of action, is to “get rid of the nuisance ordinances.”
This comment also reflects the attitude of some other city officials. Although they cannot (due to state law) or do not want to officially abolish the nuisance ordinances (due to the public reaction), these city officials choose to ignore or selectively enforce the laws.
In essence, we have what could be called “nuance” ordinances. This is a subtle way of saying that most of the time ordinances will not be enforced, but sometimes they may be – it depends on what the Mayor wants to do. Ironically, by taking out the word “is” from nuisance, we are left with the word “nuance,”
The Mayor, John E. Johnston, is the chief executor of the city and IS responsible for enforcing all city ordinances. The word “is” is so important and can make such a difference, but it depends on how it is defined. Or as Bill Clinton said, "It depends on what the meaning of the word 'is' is.” Mayor Johnston’s not-so nuanced definition of “IS responsible” would probably be: “These laws are such a nuisance. But it is up to me whether I want to enforce an ordinance or not.”
To be continued on Thursday.