Until recently, the “New Albany Forum” section of the Tribune’s web site was seldom very active, a phenomenon I imagined had something to do with the profusion of blogs in New Albany, and the opportunity they have provided for comments and discussion.
But with many of the local blogs lapsing inexorably into a moribund state, and especially within the context of the “Clean Up New Albany” threads at NA Confidential over the past two weeks, the Tribune’s forum has finally started generating a hint of critical mass.
Why were neighborhood concerns omitted from the Mayor's "state of the city" address on Thursday?
UPDATED: It wasn't an isolated occurrence.
New Albany’s own Groundhog Day? That'd be ordinance enforcement.
At least Jethro moved the yard couch.
An absentee rental property owner's Yuletide gift to the citizens of New Albany.
There'll always be differing opinions. The following was posted in a thread bearing the title, “Problems in New Albany.” Contrary to the usual policy pertaining to anonymity, I offer it to you (unedited, except for the title above) without being able to verify its authorship, and cannot attribute its source in the customary fashion. Perhaps the writer will yet claim ownership, and consider joining the discussion here.
After all, he or she correctly predicted that it would “earn a spot” on NAC, and it has. Consider it “another” viewpoint, and let the discussion begin.
----
LOL!!!
It seems like this thread has stalled, similar to forward thinking in New Albany.
I've followed the cityofnewalbany.blogspot.com on and off for a little over a year. It seems that the biggest concern, along with the east spring street association, is garbage in alleys.
I'm not saying that it is right and I agree with you that it's a problem, but before i bought that bargain of a victorian for $90,000 and invested 5 years of my life to fix it up and make it beautiful, I sure would take a look around me and realize that my neighbors might not be as financially well off or inspired as I am in my endeavors to single handedly renovate a neighborhood.
It takes time for neighborhoods to be restored. I don't think it's done by a handful of people who move into a poor neighborhood and then use their knowledge of the system to start having private meetings with the mayor and select members of city council to try to increase enforcement or lobby to hire someone to do nothing but code enforcement.
I took note of some of the code "violations" that were posted on the blog, and then travelled to some of the better parts of town, and sure enough, there are some well to do people in this town, with much more resources, that are in violation. Should we start banging on their doors and let them know they can't do that? I'm sure this enforcement will be fair and just, and be city wide and not just concentrated on select neighborhoods.
I'm probably going against the grain here, because my heart is not part of the "trash brigrade" that spends all their time looking at garbage in other people's yards. It appears that anyone who is not part of the agenda is against it. who knows, maybe this will even earn me a spot on your blog.
I put a couch at the top of my drive, I call the city they come and pick it up. Maybe it's just because I live in the right neighborhood. I'm not sure, but it's never been an issue. If my neighbor is doing some renovating, and stuff sits at the top of his drive for a couple of weeks, I sure don't have a stroke over it. There are bad parts of town all over the world. If you're looking for perfection, maybe this isn't the best place to live. Some of the stuff is just unreasonalbe.
Wanting to hold a landlord responsible for a tennant leaving a dog? Just call animal control. I live in a somewhat secluded neighborhood and for some reason, people think it's the perfect place to leave their unwanted animals. We just call the shelter and they pick the animal up. We don't run out and chase down the car, get a license plate number and then post their name on a blog. Want to commit a crime of illegal dumping to prove a point? I thought all of the nonsense protesting of the 60's was finally over.
Whatever happened to tolerance? Isn't that supposed to be the big thing of today? Aren't we all just supposed to be tolerant? or does that only apply to agenda's?
I also ran across a link from someone, i think it was ceece? who went driving around looking for violations. what a waste of gas and time!! Of course there's violations. In every city!!
I guess it would just be unreasonable that people that passionate would actually pitch in really clean up new albany, and use their collective efforts and resource to be pro-active and possibly do some of this theirselves.
Has it occured to anyone that maybe that person in the house that needs to be painted is handicapped and on assistance? Have you ever thought about taking your resources and just fixing up the house? That would really impact the community, be a blessing to someone else, and could possibly be the start of a new grass roots movement that is willing to walk the talk. Or is it easier just to penalize them and fine them, because you're not happy with a poor person as your neighbor, or maybe you just have something against poor people or people that have fallen on hard times. Maybe someone who's house is in poor condition just doesn't have the funds to fix it up right now, and along comes the "trash brigade" heaping more fines and penalties at them, making it even more difficult for them just to survive.
As for as the landlords are concerned, i'm not sure about new albany, but i'm pretty sure in louisville that a landlord has the right to evict a tennant and set out all of their property. It does not belong to the landlord, it belongs to the tennant and it's the tennant's responsibility to remove the property. If it is not removed, then it's the cities responsibility to remove the property.
It really comes back to a city that can not manage its budget. If we had a well funded street department, they could get their job done. But now we have no real street department. We have a private company doing trash collection, and I noticed the first week that things were going to get worse. It's too late to do anything now, there's an 8 year contract. it would have been more pro-active for clean up new albany to beat the drums of fixing it's sanitation's department budget problems. Instead of fining a $100 for each violation (no offense bluegill, but $100 doesn't mean anything to a landlord or property owner), it would have been better to bill them $100 for picking it up. The trash would be collected, the street department would have additonal income, and it's a lot easier and more beneficial to pursue someone for a delinquent financial account than a code violation.
As for light up new albany, why is it planned the same night as louisville? Part of foward thinking is doing what you can that your event does not lapse with a larger more successful event. What is considered a successful event? do you consider a small huddle of people on pearl street a success? how do you promote? if the businesses down the street don't even know about it, how do the families in new albany know about it? Is light up new albany the one row of bushes on market street? if it is, Vicki's bar and grill out did new albany this year!!
Scribner place will do nothing for new albany, unless new albany is already moving forward. "just wait till scribner place opens". it's really the other way around. scribner place will fail if downtown still looks and feels like a ghetto. If people do not feel safe coming downtown they're not going to come. This isn't Kevin Costner and field of dreams. People are not going to come if you build it. There has to be an environment conducive of it's success. Right now, the only people who will be coming to Scribner place are the skateboarders. It will be the only smooth pavement for miles around, and there will be more steps, rails and ramps for them to tear up. Downtown's the perfect place for them, because there's no enforcement to keep them out, and they know it!
As i've said before, I'm not a trying to be negative , but I will put the truth out there and sometimes it's not pleasant. I'm a little dissappointed the the DNA people who are posting here have not presented any type of comprehensive outline as to what will change. It's obvious that they are well aware of the problems that exist in new albany.
In the meantime, I guess i'll be knocking on my somewhat affluent neighbors house and making them aware that they are in violation of city codes. I'm sure they'll quickly spend ten to twenty thousand to come into compliance, or maybe they'll just call their council member and mayor to explain what their voting interests are and what's important to them.
15 comments:
I guess it would just be unreasonable that people that passionate would actually pitch in really clean up new albany, and use their collective efforts and resource to be pro-active and possibly do some of this theirselves.
If I were a betting man, I'd pluck this one from among a handful of questionable propositions as being the phrase most likely to incense.
Neither has "Wake Up" been fair to this blog's content over a year's period, nor is he or she paying much attention to what individuals both in and out of neighborhood associations have been doing to help clean up the neighborhoods.
Dear Roger,
I will continue to blog and not use New Albany Today as an archive site.
Maury
I have been considering a run for the 4th District City Council Seat but I had not made any decision one way or the other until now, due mainly because of personal family medical problems the past couple of months.
While there are many other issues that also need to be addressed, after I saw pictures of illegal trash dumpings that were posted on NAC and by ceece, and from taking a ride through some of the alley ways and seeing the problems for myself, after reading the "Wake Up" comment here on NAC, and knowing that this past Summer, on several occaisions truckloads of volunteers from the Democrat Party went out picking up trash, so it's not that "unreasonable that people that passionate would actually pitch in really clean up New Albany".
I agree that Cleaning Up New Albany should be the main issue in the 2007 elections and if you're still looking for "new blood" in 2007, I would like to officially announce that I am a candidate, and I will file for the office of 4th District City Council as a Democrat. I am also looking for someone who has political campaign experience to volunteer to be my Campaign Manager/Coach. I would also like to ask for the support of Clean Up New Albany as well as the support of anyone who feels the same way about saving our city and taking control back from the slumlords, drug dealers, and meth lab operators. This can be done by making "enforcement" more than just a word. There is more on my decision on the Clean Up New Albany Forums site under the topic "Election 2007-Let’s Make This THE Issue!" at http://www.cleanupnewalbany.com/forum/forum_posts.asp?TID=168&PN=1
and on my blog John Alton 2007 at http://altonforcitycouncil.blogspot.com/.
From the Wednesday C-J, in an article by Dick Kaukas about the sale of the Smith's Furniture building and its eventual reopening as a furniture store connected with Todd Coleman's existing venture:
Downtown New Albany is "a historic furniture district, and I believe we can be successful here" even though Smith's moved, (Kyle) Bixler said.
Part of the reason for his optimism, he said, is the start of construction of Scribner Place, a YMCA and municipally owned aquatic center near Main and State streets. The project will cost about $23 million.
"It will be a big thing for downtown New Albany when that's finished," Bixler said, and should help stores in the area.
Whoever authored the "trash brigade" commentary certainly has the right stuff to hold a position in our current political cabinet, with its culture of non-enforcement and ludicrous reasoning for doing so.
How many homes in New Albany that are in violation are owned by 'poor people'? In the majority of cases, these houses are owned by slumlords, who take advantage of poor people. The unfortunate, many times uneducated tenants don't know that they, although they may be poor, uneducated and without other things like a good credit history or financial resources, are entitled to value for their rent money. They don't, in many cases, realize that means the windows and doors are supposed to work properly, the furnace and water heater is supposed to be functional, the roof isn't supposed to leak, vermin isn't supposed to be infesting the premises.
No, they are poor, and they consider themselves lucky just to have a roof over their head. Maybe they are in a Section 8 program, and they don't want to make waves. They simply do not know what their rights are, and the slumlords want it to stay that way. And the City of New Albany is happy to aid and abet.
Slumlord X makes a hefty campaign donation every few years to whomever the favored candidate is, and in return, the slumlord continues business as usual, safe from those pesky building inspections that cities with a tenant rights association have.
Tolerance? What about justice? What about minimum community standards being enforced, equitably, so that everyone, rich, poor or in the middle can enjoy the same basic rights--a clean, heated place to live, in a building that is maintained to those minimums set forth by law, in a community that does not allow heaps of trash to pile up and scofflaws to add to the heaps when it pleases them?
The new class of poor who seem to be getting exploited now are Hispanics, and the City of New Albany is helping all the slumlords out with this. Many of these renters do not speak the language well, do not realize they, as tenants, have certain rights when it comes to housing standards. When the educated among us complain about the conditions of these myriad dilapidated rental properties, we're not complaining about the people who live in them, unless those residents are blatant lawbreakers. No, it's the non-enforcement of codes that irks.
But what response do our complaints get? Oh, that's right, we're prejudiced against the poor. So who would be the more prejudiced, those who want to see rental properties cleaned up and well-maintained, or those who turn a blind eye to the conditions the occupants live in? My, my, our administration wouldn't be assuming that because these people may be poor, they like to live in dirty, ill-kept slums, would they?
One way out of the vicious cycle of non-enforcement of codes is an active tenant rights group. Tenants, especially those who are uneducated or have impediments to understanding their basic rights in terms of rental housing, need to be informed that they can withhold rent payments for certain reasons like non-functioning heat, and that they cannot be evicted for complaints about issues like this. But here in New Albany, the practice has been, and continues to be, to empower the slumlord at the great detriment of the city.
tolerance? why don't you come and live next to one of these dumps buddy. allow the pit bull to dig a hole under your privacy fence where it could attack your child...
never mind that this house breeding ground for mice..and speaking of roaches...the fire detectors where going off one night and we called the fire department...want to know what was making the fire detectors go off??? the infestation of roaches inside the fire detector...
it's easy to preach tolerance from your cozy neighborhood....
There was an interesting piece on ABC news last week about a "RENAISSANCE" in Paducah of all places. It kind of paralleled the plight of New Albany and its residents. I feel it also refuted most of the claims of the naysayers out there (including some city council members)http://abcnews.go.com/Video/playerIndex?id=2748488
(sorry you have to watch a 30 second commercial to see the piece.)
Matt
"scribner place will fail if downtown still looks and feels like a ghetto."
I found this statement to be the most ironic. Rant against people who want NA cleaned up and then use the downtrodden look of NA against SP. As Mr. Spock would say, "Most illogical".
Annie,
Really like and agree with your post above. Especially the paragraph that begins, "Tolerance? What about justice?" Excellent.
New Albanian,
While you continue to show me that I have alot to learn about blogging and taking on the powers that be head on, I truly enjoy reading the articles you put on here, and I thank you for your committed participation in the problems in New Albany forum.
But as I had stated on that forum, much like the city government, That forum thread has clearly indicated that there is definate interest in reclaiming our city and putting it on a path of contiuous improvement, but there is a majority of person(s) who seem committed in bogging down any progression with contstantly bringing up the past.
I guess it is time to take another step forward and move beyond the forums and either set up a meeting with the mayor, or send in another fun and entertaining letter to the editor calling for public support or denial from our politicians regarding cleaning up this town. the laws are in place, the personel is in place, all that is lacking is action.
CSD, I'm in full agreement, but hold that thought just for a moment while I page someone.
Lloyd!! Paging Lloyd!! Come here and remind us of what we learned at the past year's attempted neighborhood forums!!
Back to CSD. What it comes down to is this. We make noise, and little of any response is forthcoming other than ad hoc clean-ups and band-aids.
The inescapable conclusion is that we've yet to muster sloth dterrence, i.e., we've yet to show that we have a group large enough to make a difference at the polls, which arguably is the only factor of importance to any elected official.
When we've tried to convene gatherings designed to build that strength, we've been crippled from within by the sort of ancient petty jealousies and turf wars that are the problem in the first place.
This is the stalemate to which Lloyd has recently been referring. It is also what I mentioned to Shirl B at the Tribune forum earlier today.
It is my belief that we have a broad enough base of support that things might begin to break, but there's been no cohesion, no willingness to surrender the first shred of autonomy, and no willingness to make the sacrifices demanded of those intent on unity.
Why? I blame the traditional political process. We're outside it, and yet for those inside, there can be no strategic planning without first considering the effect on narrow partisan interests.
In short, and conjecturing, if we went to City Hall as Democrats, not cantankerous independents, and were able to offer electoral cover for a reform program (or, conversely, to a Republican candidate for mayor), then there might be some traction. But either party is inclined to act only if the credit can be given to their own party, not if it's there to be claimed by outsiders.
And there, my friends, is the conundrum. Making nice with the people whose lack of action helped bring us to this juncture. That's the glory of the two-party system, is it not?
hopefully we can get there to those numbers in the next few months before the upcoming elections.
I am fully aware that there are many other problems facing this city that need attention. But the reality is, what good does it do to plant a pretty flower in a pile of manure?
The letter to the Tribune you quoted seems to encapsulate what Roger calls The NA syndrome – excuses, poor logic,... nay-saying. What to be most incensed by? The idea of “not liking poor people” as the motive for revitalization? Talk about playing a wild card! I’m just not as sure as you are that “poor” people (myself included – and throw in disabled) really want to live in a slum. As New Albany Annie correctly stated – it’s the absentee slumlords whose second homes in Florida are being financed by the steady extraction of value in downtown over the last 50 years that benefit from the non-enforcement of minimum building standards, not “poor and/or disabled people” By this person’s logic, if I object to 12 year olds driving, I don’t like young people! And! breathlessly complaining about creating a sense of safety downtown and then complaining about the people working to change that.
Wow! I'm starting to see why this town is filled with crack-heads and their apologists.
As tempted as I am to answer my "pager" with gusto, experience has taught me that to do so would only drag us back down to the bottom of the garbage heap. For me that is a fruitless exercise, so I won't go there.
I will acknowledge that valuable lessons were learned from the aforementioned forums that I hope will be incorporated in future such ventures.
In my mind the keys to our success against over overwhelming odds to change the status quo are as follows;
1) Leadership-In an organizational sense not in a "I'm in charge sense"
2) Followership-A willingness of individuals to use their time, talents, experience, resources, and contacts to assist in acheiving the goal we set before us. Even if, and those who know me can attest to what a bad taste this leaves in my mouth to suggest it, we have to get our hands dirty politically in the process!
3) Unity of purpose-If "Clean Up New Albany" is the flag we are flying, what specifically does that entail? If it's code enforcement, which ones? Are they on the books? Are they enforceable? Do they need to be scrapped and replaced or updated to address current events? Are there legislators in place who are willing to change them? Is there an administration in place that is willing to enforce them? Last but certainly not least, is there a tax paying,voting citizenry in place who is willing to ante up the time, money, and resources to do the leg work to answer all of the above and then agree on a course of action to cause the needed changes.
These are but a few of the key ingredients needed for this batch of dough to rise. I'm sure there are more and I look forward to hearing them. I'm also sure that without a cohesion between these ingredients, We ain't never gonna end up with a loaf of edible bread!
I truly do not feel that thisis an issue against "poor people." This is an issue against those people who have lost sense of some of the most basic social behaviors, social responsibility and accountability.
There are many many "poor" people whos homes are clean, both inside and out. And transversly, there are many "rich" people who's homes are just as disgusting as any of the slumlord's rent a wrecks that are degrading our town.
There in lies the true problem, to tackle this issue, it is not just unpolitically correct step of going after a poor person or two and telling them that they MUST clean up their property or face fines, but this issue must also target some of the wealthiest in the city, some of which are the onwers of many of the dumpiest properties in town. Those persons pockets are deep, and can afford a fight, but not only that I am sure that they have a fair amount of politicians attached to their purse strings as well.
Hell at this point, whos to say that there are not those in the city government who own one or two of these questionable properties?
The burden of this falls not only on the shoulders of the elected and appointed officials, it does not only fall on the shoulder of Pam Badger, the code enforcement officer. It fall squarely on all of our shoulders, on the level of social responsibility. If we have specigic knowledge of a highly ditressed property, and we also know that the owner is disabled, then we have a responsibility to help them fix the problem, to offer them help to clean it up.
On the other side of that coin, we also have the responsibility to make sure if we see a property going downhill fast, and there is no indication of disability other than slobbery, we need to report that in our neighborhood, and follow up on that report until a satisfactory result (with in reason) is obtained.
Look, I dont think we can take all of these properties by enforcing ordinances have them qualify to be on the cover of midwest living in a onth or two. But they should be brought up to at least a reasonable standard, taking into consideration the character of the surrounding area.
You can not reasonably force one family to completely remodel, revamp, and sanatize a property when the entire block is less than visually pleasing, but you can and should force them to bring that home up to at least the minimum standard of the immediate adjacent area. Once that is completed, then thats when we need to start looking into state and federal grants for neighborhood improvements.
Happy New Year,
With regard to "unity of purpose", in Highwayman's comments, in my view it entails three words.. #1 "enforcement". If we're not willing to enforce the standards that are set, why set them? Enforcement of ordinances should not be having one person being "in charge" and being expected to have all of the answers. An expanded Code Enforcement Dept, Legal team, and the addition of a City Court are needed. #2 "Communication". There needs to be more..or some, direct communication between residents, business owners, and elected officials. To properly serve and represent residents and business owners, doesn't it make sense to at least meet with them..say once a month, to listen to the concerns and to just get general feedback on how residents feel about current issues/situations? #3 "Teamwork". With regular communication between residents/business owners and elected officials, the result should be better enforcement, more agreement on the outcome of issues, a more peaceful environment between city government offices, less debate/arguement at the Council level, resulting in a faster turn around time on decisions being made. This would be the "teamwork".
Cleaning Up New Albany involves more than just cutting grass, trimming trees, and repairing or getting rid of buildings in dis-repair. It involves street repair, not giving any preferential treatment for relatives or friends or campaign contributers (Gregory), getting funding to establish a Dedicated Drug Taskforce to battle the increasing drug/meth problem, as well as prostitution. As for Code Enforcement, there are ordinances in the books now that spell out what is expected. They are 37 years old, but I think for the most part they're applicable today...with enforcement. For example;
Under Housing Codes...
§ 150.099 BUILDING MAINTENANCE.
No person shall occupy as owner-occupant, or let to another person for occupancy, any dwelling or dwelling unit for the purpose of living therein which does not comply with the following requirements:
(A) Every foundation, floor, wall, ceiling and roof shall be reasonably weathertight, watertight and rodent-proof; shall be capable of affording privacy; and shall be kept in good repair.
(B) Every window, exterior door and basement hatchway shall be reasonably weathertight, watertight and rodent-proof; shall be capable of affording privacy; and shall be kept in good repair.
(C) Every inside and outside stair, every porch and every appurtenance thereto shall be so constructed as to be safe to use and capable of supporting the load that the normal use may cause to be placed thereon; and shall be kept in sound condition and good repair.
(D) Every plumbing fixture and waste water pipe within a single-family dwelling unit and used principally by occupants of the dwelling unit shall be maintained in good sanitary working condition, free from defects, leaks and obstructions by the occupant of the dwelling unit. Every supplied facility, piece of equipment or utility which is required under this subchapter shall be so constructed or installed that it will function safely and effectively, and shall be maintained in satisfactory working condition.
(E) The floor and walls of every water closet compartment shall be constructed and maintained so as to be substantially impervious to water, and so as to permit such floor and walls to be easily kept in a clean and sanitary condition.
(F) No person shall occupy or let to any other person for occupancy, any vacant dwelling or dwelling unit unless it is clean, sanitary and fit for human occupancy. If in the opinion of the Building Commissioner a dwelling or dwelling unit has been erected, altered or occupied contrary to law; or if a dwelling or dwelling unit is infected with a contagious disease or is dangerous to life or health by reason of want of repair or defects in drainage, plumbing, ventilation or construction, or by reason of the existence on the premises of a nuisance, the Building Commissioner may require all persons to vacate the dwelling or dwelling unit within not less than 24 hours or more than ten days, for reasons set out in his order. In case that order is not complied with, the Building Commissioner then may cause the dwelling or dwelling unit to be vacated until such time as the condition upon which the order is based has been corrected.
(G) Every roof of a dwelling or dwelling unit shall be equipped with adequate gutters and downspouts capable of carrying off normal rainfall. Such roof, gutters and downspouts shall be kept in good repair and free from obstruction by the owner, unless otherwise provided by the rental agreement.
(H) All dwellings, fences and outbuildings, in a dilapidated or unsafe condition shall be removed or repaired. All yard structures, privies, fences and rubbish, as well as abandoned automobiles incapable of operation, inoperable appliances of any sort, materials or supplies which obstruct light and air, harbor rats and vermin, and create an undesirable environment shall be removed.
(I) All occupants shall keep every dwelling and yard clean and free from accumulation of dirt, filth, rubbish or similar matter, and shall keep same free from vermin and rodent infestation. This shall apply to that portion of the property which the occupant occupies or over which the occupant has exclusive control.
('71 Code, §154.05) (Ord. G-69-352, passed 3-7-69)
§ 150.100 OCCUPANCY.
No person shall occupy or let to another for occupancy, any dwelling or dwelling unit for the purpose of living therein which does not comply with the following requirements:
(A) Every dwelling unit shall contain at least 150 square feet of floor space for the first occupant thereof, and at least 100 additional square feet of floor space for each additional occupant thereof. The floor space shall be calculated on the basis of total habitable room area.
(B) In every dwelling unit of two or more rooms, every room occupied for sleeping purposes by an occupant shall contain at least 70 square feet of floor space, and every room occupied for sleeping purposes by more than one occupant shall contain at least 50 square feet for each occupant thereof.
(C) At least one-half of the floor area of every habitable room shall have a ceiling height of at least seven feet. The floor area of that part of any room where the ceiling height is less than five feet shall not be considered as part of the floor area in computing the total floor area of the room for the purpose of determining the maximum permissible occupancy thereof.
(D) Where more than two persons occupy any dwelling unit, food shall not be prepared or cooked in any room used for sleeping purposes unless where so originally architecturally designed.
(E) No residence building or dwelling unit containing two or more sleeping rooms shall have such room arrangement that access to a bathroom or water closet compartment intended for use by occupants of more than one sleeping room can be had only by going through another sleeping room; nor shall the room arrangement be such that access to a sleeping room can be had only by going through another sleeping room, bathroom or water closet compartment.
('71 Code, §154.06) (Ord. G-69-352, passed 3-7-69)
§ 150.101 CLEANLINESS OF PREMISES.
(A) Responsibilities of owners and occupants. Every owner of a dwelling containing two or more dwelling units shall be responsible for maintaining in a clean and sanitary condition such dwelling units, and the shared or public area of the dwelling premises thereof. Every occupant of a dwelling containing less than two dwelling units shall be responsible for maintaining in a clean and sanitary condition the shared or public area of the dwelling and premises thereof, unless otherwise provided for by the rental agreement.
(B) Responsibility of every occupant of a dwelling or dwelling unit. Every occupant of a dwelling or dwelling unit shall keep in a clean and sanitary condition that part of the dwelling, dwelling unit, facilities, yard and otherwise, all of the premises which he and his family occupies, uses and controls.
(C) Municipal department responsible for administration. Unless specifically stated elsewhere in this chapter, the Building Commissioner shall be responsible for the administration of actions taken under this chapter, including but not limited to, the issuance of notices to the landowners and other persons, the issuance of certificates of cost to the County Auditor, and the administration of the appeals procedure.
(D) Maintaining premises free of debris, trash, litter, garbage, refuse, junk and abandoned vehicles.
(1) The owner of any lot or parcel of real estate within the city shall maintain the premises, including the real estate, or any alley or sidewalk abutting the real estate, free of all debris, trash, rubbish, litter, garbage, refuse , junk and abandoned vehicles, when such material is within view of any public premises, public alley, street, highway or adjacent property, to such an extent that the premise is a hazard to public health, safety and welfare.
(2) The presence of debris, trash, rubbish, litter, garbage, refuse, tires, junk, and abandoned vehicles is injurious to the public welfare and is a nuisance.
If we, as a City, are forever content with the "status quo" being the standard by which we live, then it doesn't matter how many ordincances are written, how much garbage is picked up, or who picks it up...there will be no change and we will continue on being overshadowed by Clarksville, Jeffersonville, Corydon, and soon even Sellersburg. The current City Council sure doesn't seem to want to take up this issue or anything else. As far as the smoking ban...hey guys...first meeting...vote it up or down and get it out of the way! Either light 'em up or stamp 'em out! It shouldn't take all of the drama. Maybe these ingredients will help make the dough rise on this loaf of bread...I'm a little partial to sweet rolls myself.
Post a Comment