over again, where some pigs are more equal than others.
In our article published Tuesday, January 17, 2012 we
challenged the appropriateness of certain of the Iron River
parking ordinances. Then we selected an individual who
recently proved to the world that he occasionally has a
caustic personality in a recent email attacking your
humble correspondent. We published that on October 5,
2011.
See http://tinyurl.com/6upm7qw for reference to the
following.
Section 7.102(B)(5) prohibits parking on a grade in the way
that John Archocosky does daily while working as city
manager at Iron River's City Hall. There is a $25 fine
associated with this particular violation. Because he is
parked "on any grade" he is required to turn his wheels
in to the curb and set his parking brake.
It is clear from the photo above that he is in violation
of the ordinance because his wheels are pointing away
from the curb.
We add here that there are relatively few places on this
earth where one might park that is not on some grade. It
is a simple fact that perfectly flat and level spots are hard
to find anywhere. So in this case the ordinance is very
poorly worded.
If we say OK, so the grade isn't enough to worry about,
let's just say the vehicle is parked on a level enough spot
to escape the section cited above.
Then John Archocosky runs afoul of another section of the
parking ordinance, section 7.102(B)(2) which presents us
with a $15 violation instead for failure to turn the font
wheels parallel with the roadway.
The point of this article is that the City of Iron River
ordinances are poorly written at best, and many sections
were ill conceived when enacted. This problem affects the
entire body of work, not just the traffic ordinance.
Much of that historic work needs to be revised rather
than retaining something copied from sources that never
had a real clue about governing.
If you're going to copy from someone, at least do your best
to copy from an A student rather than from a failing
student as has been done.
IronCountyDoings has no doubt that Mr. Archocosky didn't
intend to violate the ordinance. But shouldn't citizens who
have run afoul of the noxious weeds ordinance, either
through their own fault or because the public works
foreman has unbridled power in another very badly
conceived and executed section, 91.32, insist that John
Archocosky pay up for every violation just as the city
demands of property owners under 91.32?
Well that's not going to happen!
It is generally accepted that the population at large is law
abiding. But the City of Iron River seems to prefer to
presume that any violation, or apparent violation, of
section 91.32 should bring the wrath of the city down
about the ears of property owners to enrich the city
coffers while only paying lip service to:
“Our entire staff is here to serve our local taxpayers, and
you are our first priority.” – (s) Anderson and Zanon
Clerk [1] and (former) Mayor
As we offered yesterday, that's propaganda, pure and
simple. And we demand that all local governments put
their money where their mouth is. If you're going to say
"we serve' then by gum, do it!
And if not, resign.
Bill Vajk
Footnote [1] We originally listed Anderson as City Treasurer when in fact Anderson is the Clerk. We apologize for our error.
No comments:
Post a Comment