Transcendentalist Henry David Thoreau said, “that government is best which governs the least, because its people discipline themselves.”
In addition to federal and state laws the City of Eureka Springs has around 1,000 city laws, known as ordinances, to be honored by residents and visitors alike. From the 1948 Ord. 737 that authorized the installation of parking meters, to 1950 Ord. 753 making Pine a one-way street, to the 1997 Ord. 1750 authorizing 10-minute loading zones on Spring Street, and the 1998 Ord. 1797 restricting noise pollution, ordinances are generally deemed to help the operation of the city and promote a safe environment.
But what happens when ordinances get a bit picky? Say, a child sets up an innocent lemonade stand in the historic downtown district for one afternoon. Without a license, city officials will shut it down. Or what about painting the front of your business building a fresh new color without approval from the Historic District Commission first? Property owners may argue that an improvement is always welcome. That is not the case according to the commissioners.
What about if you want to improve your home with insulated vinyl windows? Yes, the federal government gives tax incentives for energy efficiency improvements, but the city may not allow it. These are some of the issues that pose the question, are the ordinances serving the community well?
Recently the city incurred an unexpected expense of $40,000 for the settlement of a lawsuit over an ordinance grievance by a property owner. Because of a gag order on all those who participated in the settlement, conference details of the court hearing have been kept private but the cost affects the city at large.
The claim alleged “that the City was responsible for the harm… because it failed to follow its own ordinances.” So that leads to the next question, are the ordinances themselves the concern, or is it the enforcement thereof? Alderman Bob Thomas says the comments from citizens in his ward “stem from frustration related to non-enforcement of existing ordinances.”
Ordinance enforcement lies under the purview of the city administration, and the head of the administration is the mayor. Currently, the city administration has one staff code enforcer in City Hall and 12 sworn police officers. When the council approves amendments to current ordinances or makes new ordinances, the City Clerk provides this information to both the code enforcer and the police department.
For ordinances that clearly state the penalties for violations, there is little room for leniency. For example, the noise pollution ordinance states that first offenders will be penalized between $50 and $250. Police officers can easily issue a citation and expect an outcome by a deadline. However, for building or property violations, the property owner may be given time to bring their property to code.
Alderman Thomas shared his most commonly heard explanation for lack of enforcement, “The Building Inspector tries to remedy ordinance complaints by working with the offender. The BI is reluctant to write citations because the City Attorney will not follow through and prosecute. The City Attorney chooses not to prosecute because he sees little likelihood of winning the case in court.”
Thomas has also been told that the existing remedies are not effective. He went on to write, “Whatever reasons for lack of enforcement, it is up to the City Council to make the decision to delve more deeply into this situation and take whatever legislative steps are necessary to make it possible to effectively and fairly enforce ordinances.”
Aldermen Mickey Schneider and Melissa Greene have decided to bring this issue to the next regular council meeting. Mrs. Greene said regarding code enforcement, “It is a huge issue in the minds of the constituents.” Thomas said the constituents in his ward have asked the council to “stop writing ordinances until you enforce the ones we have. Enforce the existing ordinances.” Thomas reminds them that, “any action by Council can only take place when a majority of council members admit the problem exists and are willing to vote to confront and deal with the problem.”
Aldermen unwilling to comment were Harman, Meyer, and McClung.
Holly Wescott