04/23/07 Council Meeting Minutes

Home Browse Search

REGULAR MEETING APRIL 23, 2007 clearly be that if enforcement of existing codes cannot make those people get rid of their cars, we will just take away their parking. The upside is that the fines are ridiculous and will bring in big money! That will teach them to live like we want them to. Of course the crafters of this odious bid of work chose to ignore the obvious realties of the situation. First, is the fact that car ownership averages 2.5 cars per house hold. Next, increased population densities in the older neighborhoods have made increased auto population a reality of life. There is an increased density of wage earners in out neighborhoods. This is no longer the day of one wage earner per family. We have two or three people per family that have to real on an automobile to get to their way of living. This is a by product of our economy where it takes two or three jobs to equal what one good factory job used to bring home. There is a predominance of rental property in the older neighborhoods and in many cases those rental properties have increased the density still further of population. All these existing neighborhoods, particularly in the poorer neighborhoods of this City were all built under a whole different set of guidelines, with a whole different set of expectations. They were built in a time when car ownership was unusual If you did have a car, you were lucky to have one, and they were built on small lots, and now we are trying to impose the realities of life today, not some image of what life today, some Ozzie and Harriet image of what life ought to be today, but the reality of life today, on this older neighborhood matrix. It is fifteen pounds of sugar in a five pound bag, it's a classic situation. And yes, it is resulting in some situations that are undesirable, but instead of a surgical strike against that specific targets we got a sledge hammer approach that nails shut every door of opportunity for compliance on a no cost or low cost basis on the part of the residence. Mr. Szabo stated that he can hardly wait to see the flood of appeals to landlords to please spend $6,000 to $8,000 on a concrete slab, so the tenant can park their car on their property. Solutions that are supposedly forth coming non of which satisfy the needs of people involved because they park because it is the right to do so, because of safety, because streets in front of their homes cannot accommodate them. And yet, we are going to shuffle them off to an ugly neighborhood and pocket parking lots. Who really believes that their car will still be there in the morning when they go out, if they are not mugged on the way home at night. These solutions are ill thought out. What we are doing and what we are admitting is that we have created a huge problem, we are going to throw all these cars on the street, and we have no solutions, but we will come up with something. In the meantime, let's go ahead and drop the hammer on everybody, make them pay big money in a hurry, and let the rest of it take care of itself in time. This is heartless, sole less, this is government by fiat, this is government because they can, not because they should. Mr. Stephen Hayes, 1219 White Oak Drive, South Bend, Indiana, spoke opposed to this bill. Mr. Hayes advised that he is the President of the Wooded Estates Neighborhood Association. The association's concerns revolve around what will be handled in the temporary residential special events legislation that is going to be developed by Council President Tim Rouse. The association would like to participate in discussion to make sure that the residents and their opinions and desires are hopefully reflected within that ordinance. Mr. Hayes stated that he would be remiss if he didn't say that bypassing a piece of legislation that in essence bans the parking and hopes that the exception will follow. Many in his neighborhood still feel the way the previous speaker felt in terms of imposing some restrictions on their right to use their property as they see fit. He understands that it was in the legislation previously and was inadvertently left out. Some in his neighborhood would say just because it was a bad law in the previous one doesn't mean you necessarily want to carry it forward. The other thing that many in his neighborhood would want it to actually see the data, such words as may or perhaps or might influence property values etc. He has not seen the data that has been presented, hopefully he will capture it and bring it forward to his group. Otherwise, the last concern in the driveway. The reliance on complaint driven compliance, in his neighborhood they have a busybody that likes to know the Code Enforcement backward and forward and turn that loose upon fellow neighbors. He would hope that the City Council would not be adding to that here. In rebuttal, Councihnember Puzzello stated that her husband came from Italy as an adult, and became a citizen of the United States, and he would highly offend to be called a fascist. Councilmember Puzzello stated that that remark irritates her greatly. She 10