How Local Government Ought to Work

At this point in the game it’s hard to determine what, exactly, the City Council is trying to do with this parking ordnance change.  As it came out of the Planning Commission, the rewrite of that segment of the City Code caused a bit of a stir.  More than 60 people packed City Council chambers and more were standing outside listening over a loudspeaker.

The Planning Commission, one would have to think under the direction of City Council, came back with a fairly restrictive plan for parking campers, RVs, trailers, and commercial vehicles.  The plan, as it was first proposed, would have created significant changes, for instance, the planners recommended limiting trailers to 21-feet.  Most trailers used for camping start at 21-feet, and I own one and know it is really a bit on the small side. I mean, as a camper, we like to have our controlled environment as comfy as we can make it.  They also wanted to restrict the number of such vehicles, not to include the commercial vehicles, to one.

Both of those ideas hit the pavement at last week’s work session when council voted against prohibiting the size and the number of such vehicles that a home owner can own and park on their property. In fact, Councilor Betsy Luck said it best when she commented that “Size doesn’t matter.”

The big Magilla left concerning campers, trailers, and RVs appears to be where a resident would be allowed to park them. At first, I thought that Council would stick to the back yard or behind the front plane of the house ruling. It seems, at one level, to be a fair and practical way to handle the issue.  In fact, last week, it seemed readily apparent that council was leaning toward that standard, which exists as is today.

But something happened along the way that may have opened the door to a change in that posture.  Several citizens spoke at the hearing. Two people spoke directly against the commercial vehicle parking regulations, stating that parking large commercial vehicles in their residential neighborhood were, basically, a nuisance. For the most part, they were upset about tow truck drivers parking their vehicles by their homes.

In the parlance of land use planning, these people are often referred to by the acronym NIMBY, or not in my back yard. For the most part, the idea is that such people wouldn’t care about parking a commercial vehicle in a residential neighborhood, except that it is their neighborhood and perhaps their neighbor.

I am certain that having a large roll back style tow truck starting up at all hours of the morning might be cause for concern for a neighbor. It may well be inconvenient or annoying to have someone crank up one of those big diesel engines at 2 a.m. when they are called out to pick up a vehicle. But I think people have a right to park their commercial vehicles on their own property.

It’s a tough discussion.

Council, at the work session, seemed set on limiting the number of commercial vehicles at a residence to one. But the people who spoke Tuesday night at the public hearing made solid points as to why they may need to have more than one parked at their homes.

For what it’s worth, the City is having a hard time coming up with a good definition for a commercial vehicle. Is it a vehicle with a painted on logo? Is it determined by the number of axles the vehicle has? Is it determined by the type of license plate it sports? Is it determined by gross weight?

That’s a lot of questions and a lot of different answers. If I have two tow trucks and I park them in my driveway who exactly am I bothering? Response time seems to be a big part of the equation. When someone needs a tow truck, the sooner it gets there the better. The City is aware of things like response time, response time is a big driver when it comes to analyzing the value of fire and rescue departments. While the tow truck may not be involved directly in life and death issues, there’s something to be said for getting one at the scene as quickly as possible.

Council, showing infinite wisdom, opted to table the final two decisions until they could work through them at their next work session.

By the end of the public hearing, Council seemed no further along than they were before they even started reviewing the code.  If they get out of this by only keeping the front line of the house portion, we will be basically right where we are today, except that the code will have been addressed in 2016 and not in 1980. Some people might scoff at the idea of attending a public hearing. Some might say, “You can’t fight city hall.” But judging from the changes already made, and the sense of things that may be coming, it looks like the citizens who showed up and spoke did have an impact on the code discussion.

It probably didn’t hurt that five council members are up for election this cycle, but it’s still interesting to see how “We the People” can still effect change instead of sitting back and allowing change to affect us.  It’s still possible that City Council will approve a change that is more restrictive than what we have now.  And yet there seems to be some movement toward a more amicable solution.

Had no one showed up at the past two meetings, it would have been simple for Council to summarily approve the changes. Had council chambers been empty, the most restrictive parts of the Planning Commission’s recommendation would likely have passed without a hitch. Instead, citizen stood up to be heard. That’s how local government should work.