Shame, Shame on Code Dept

[Deborah Morris]

District 1 Councilman Doug Athas just posted a blog entry about the situation between the City of Garland and Garland automotive businesses. Here's a link: Zero-Tolerance Policy By Location or Vocation?

Just when I think it's safe again to feel proud of our Code Department (after the outstanding "Code Cares" program), they start targeting specific groups of citizens again for over-the-top enforcement in order to drive them out of Garland.

I'll go on record here as absolutely hating all the tacky car lots in Garland, BUT that has nothing to do with this issue. Our Code of Ordinances should be enforced fairly and evenly across the city, not used as a club to intimidate and drive away certain citizens and businesses. If you'll recall, the last time this kind of ugliness raised its head it was aimed at rental properties and tenants--another class of people and properties that the then-council and their sycophants considered undesirable. The end result was that the next election brought a new city council who pledged even-handed decisions and fair enforcement.

I and my family will not stand by while these businesses, tacky or not, are subjected to this kind of treatment. I'm ashamed of city council member John Willis for apparently proposing targeted zoning changes aimed at these small companies... especially since he was one of the loud voices calling for fair and even-handed enforcement on rental properties a couple years back.

And beware if you find yourself thinking, "But I'd be FINE with driving all the car lots out of town!", because the next "undesirable" group might very well include you.

[Deborah Morris]

Okay, correction: apparently it's not the Code Dept that's doing this; it's Building Inspections:

From: "Briley, Richard"

Ms. Morris,

The Code Compliance Department does not enforce regulations upon commercial properties. I believe you will find Building Inspections is the department charged with ensuring compliance in these zones.

Richard Briley
Managing Director of Health & Code Compliance

[John Willis]

Before:




After:




This property is zoned Commercial-2, which is very permissive in its list of uses, but it does not allow for long term storage of vehicles.

A lack of consistent and fair zoning enforcement over a decade or more has allowed this kind of inappropriate and illegal use to not only exist, but persist. In this case the long term storage of these vehicles occurred within fifty feet of five single family homes.

[Jeff Maynard]

Originally Posted by John Willis

Before:




After:




This property is zoned Commercial-2, which is very permissive in its list of uses, but it does not allow for long term storage of vehicles.

A lack of consistent and fair zoning enforcement over a decade or more has allowed this kind of inappropriate and illegal use to not only exist, but persist. In this case the long term storage of these vehicles occurred within fifty feet of five single family homes.

John, while I appreciate that Building Inspection and/or Code Enforcement are working to clear up problems, I think Doug made some very legitimate points in his blog. Enforcement within the city needs to be fair and unbiased. In addition, before any major enforcment effort is initiated Council should be made aware; all council, not just select members, and the discussion should probably be initiated in open forum as to not violate any Open Meetings requirements.

In addition, all Charter rules must be followed and interpertation should be clear and agreed upon.

While I dislike the auto lots along our main corridors I cannot see anyone representing our city taking actions that would be viewed un-friendly and they should not be singled out.

[Cool Hand]

Let me introduce you to Clyde O'Dell. Clyde has been a building inspector in Garland fur many a yurs. I told him when I am Mayor, I will make him the new Chief Building Inspector in Garland.

Clyde will focus, and sometimes will refocus on building issues. We will need to git him an assistant cuz of a roof inspection accident he had last winter. You see, he broke his foot and now tends to walk in circles cuz the new doctor in town, we found out really weren't a doctor. Clyde can't go too far with two feet pointin in da same direction. I told him about Dan O. as his assistant and he got exited cuz he may be cousins.

Clyde gots lots of books and can even read dem. He can de-si-fer drawins and says he has some nice colored certificates to put on his wall and show if anyone asks.

[Jeff Maynard]

Originally Posted by Cool Hand

Let me introduce you to Clyde O'Dell. Clyde has been a building inspector in Garland fur many a yurs. I told him when I am Mayor, I will make him the new Chief Building Inspector in Garland.

Clyde will focus, and sometimes will refocus on building issues. We will need to git him an assistant cuz of a roof inspection accident he had last winter. You see, he broke his foot and now tends to walk in circles cuz the new doctor in town, we found out really weren't a doctor. Clyde can't go too far with two feet pointin in da same direction. I told him about Dan O. as his assistant and he got exited cuz he may be cousins.

Clyde gots lots of books and can even read dem. He can de-si-fer drawins and says he has some nice colored certificates to put on his wall and show if anyone asks.

Cool Hand, your message seems to hit the problem square between the eyes. No, not the problems with building inspectors using personal license to fine businesses or harrass them. The problem I am refering to is your statement that:

I told him when I am Mayor, I will make him the new Chief Building Inspector in Garland

Cool Hand, as Mayor you would not be permitted to hire Clyde. Even if you win a council seat you would not be permitted. This whole problem, as I see it begining to unfold, is that we, again, seem to have people serving that think that this is the case. See CH, the council only hires the City Attorney, Police Chief, and City Manager. Any interference with operations below those positions is a direct violation of our City Charter. So, CH, dont make any promises you can't keep and watch those that seem to think the same way.

[Deborah Morris]

[quote=John Willis;16378]Before:




After:




The ends do not justify the means. Never have, never will.

Oddly enough, this whole situation reminded me of Pastor Martin Niemöller's thought-provoking poem:

"In Germany, they came first for the Communists, And I didn’t speak up because I wasn’t a Communist;
And then they came for the trade unionists, And I didn’t speak up because I wasn’t a trade unionist;
And then they came for the Jews, And I didn’t speak up because I wasn’t a Jew;
And then . . . they came for me . . . And by that time there was no one left to speak up."

I have no connection to any of the car lots in Garland, and to my knowledge I don't know anybody else who is connected with them in any way. This isn't personal. This is about what's right. And changing the rules mid-stream in order to disadvantage an unloved business, or targeting them for enhanced enforcement that, say, Firewheel businesses are not subjected to, is just plain wrong.

Since many of these unloved car lots are actually in your district, should you not be representing them and their viewpoints, challenges, and concerns as well? Have you actually visited the lots in your district and talked first-hand to the owners to ask them for input? At this point they're very much in a defensive posture, so they'll probably be less forthcoming than they might have been if they'd been approached earlier and with respect, but it's still worth a shot.

I would be glad to negotiate discounts for paint, landscaping plants, etc. from our local Home Depot for lots interested in improving their curb appeal. I'm surprised you're not more interested in pursuing an educational avenue similar to your suggestion for the Rental Inspection problem. Landlords citywide were demonized as "slumlords", and you felt it was all about educating landlords about the return they'd get for maintaining and improving their homes. Why not take that approach with our local car lots? Encourage them to voluntarily spruce up their places of business? Try to PARTNER with them rather than bullying them?

[Cool Hand]

Thank you Mr. Maynard,
I will need to brush up on the City Home Rule Charter prior to announcing my candidacy for Mayor.
CH

[Les Cook]

Originally Posted by John Willis

Before:




After:




This property is zoned Commercial-2, which is very permissive in its list of uses, but it does not allow for long term storage of vehicles.

A lack of consistent and fair zoning enforcement over a decade or more has allowed this kind of inappropriate and illegal use to not only exist, but persist. In this case the long term storage of these vehicles occurred within fifty feet of five single family homes.

Mr. Willis, can you explain your reasons for proposing the (back zoning or new zoning) of S. Garland Ave. that would be restrictive to the good business & property owners presently located there? Will the City buy all the owners out in a way similar to the condemnation process? The pictures you posted misrepresent the area, in my opinion. I don't fully understand what you are trying to do or if this is something a Politician should be so involved with.

[MessWright]

I'm wondering whether some of these properties of note were zoned C-2 before or after the nearby residences were erected.

If a property was already zoned C-2, then why was anyone permitted to build residences backing up to or surrounding that property?

Either way, I'm not condoning the inappropriate storage of junk vehicles on C-2 properties. Some enforcement is certainly called for where illegal storage is concerned.