Are there problems with the Quality of Life Ordinance ??? Lets take a look at a Schuylkill Township meeting from August 2013...... It was standing room only at Wednesday nights Schuylkill Township meeting. Over 60 residents packed the township building and out into the hallway. Several even stood outside the building near open windows to hear what was going on inside. The hot topic? A proposed quality of life ordinance that supervisors had planned to vote on during the meeting. According to township solicitor Michael Greek, a quality of life ordinance is not a new thing. He cited several local communities who have already adopted similar ordinances, including Tamaqua and Pottsville. The quality of life ordinance is designed to give local officials an immediate recourse for nuisance issues, as opposed to following the current ordinances, which require things like high grass, abandoned vehicles, and the accumulation of garbage on a property, to be pursued through the magistrate. The supervisors explained that following the current course of action, high weeds could persist for months, through the citation and appeal process, before anything could legally be done by the township to alleviate the situation. Under the proposed ordinance, a designee of the township, typically a code enforcement officer or a police officer, would be able to issue a ticket, similar to a parking ticket, immediately. If the fine was not paid and the nuisance not corrected, the township would be able to pursue cleaning up the nuisance within a matter of days and then go after the property owner to recoup their loss. While several residents brought up problem properties in the municipality and asked what could be done about them, the majority of those present were not in favor of the ordinance. This is a burden, said John Bubon, of Brockton. Bubon said that the township was following the broken window approach that New York City used to combat urban decay and gang violence in the 1990s. Bubon and others went on to say that treating urban decay is a different ballgame than treating nuisance properties in rural areas. This is going to affect the poor, the disabled, the elderly, who may be both poor and disabled, and the small businesses, he said. David Pysanchin questioned how objective a designated public official could be. This gives you your own little police force, he said to the supervisors. Im not saying youre going to take us into the concentration camps, but you are going to hit us in the pocketbooks. Theyre going to drain you, and you, and you, and you, he said, pointing to various members of the audience. Where will it stop? Quite a few of the questions centered on language in the ordinance that regulates having cars and car parts on personal property. Many asked if they would be able to continue working on their own vehicles in their own driveways. Several residents who do part-time auto work or automobile restoration as a supplemental income or hobby, asked where they were supposed to go to do their work. Supervisors assured residents that the intent of the ordinance is not to prohibit work like that. The supervisors explained that amendments had been made to the original ordinance and said that the copy that most residents were working off of was an outdated one. Resident Tony Zawada asked how the ordinance would be enforced in various parts of the township. What youre calling a weed over here, I like to see the deer come and eat it. Some of us live out in the woods. I have bears walking through my yard, doing their business, he added, alluding to the ordinance requiring dog feces to be cleaned up every 24 hours. Another man said that the ordinance refers to a dandelion as a noxious weed. Someone else might not see it that way, he said. Resident Rich Magnani probably summed up the feelings of the crowd best when he stated loudly, We dont want this! The room erupted in applause after his statement.
Posted on: Sat, 05 Jul 2014 00:05:05 +0000
Trending Topics
Recently Viewed Topics
© 2015