| View previous topic :: View next topic |
| Author |
Message |
snowbird
Guest
|
|
| Back to top |
|
 |
Guest
|
 Posted: Fri, Jul 1 2011, 4:42 pm EDT Post subject: Re: proposed snow ordinance makes sense - thanks TC members |
 |
|
| Yes, it's very resident friendly. Thanks. Good job. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Guest
|
| Posted: Fri, Jul 1 2011, 4:53 pm EDT Post subject: Re: proposed snow ordinance makes sense - thanks TC members |
|
|
| Why even waste your time and effort. This is funny. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Guest
|
| Posted: Fri, Jul 1 2011, 5:26 pm EDT Post subject: Re: proposed snow ordinance makes sense - thanks TC members |
|
|
| Police will come and knock your door. If you think it's funny, just ignore the ordinance. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Guest
|
| Posted: Fri, Jul 1 2011, 5:36 pm EDT Post subject: Re: proposed snow ordinance makes sense - thanks TC members |
|
|
| Sounds akin to legislating civility. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Guest
|
| Posted: Fri, Jul 1 2011, 7:16 pm EDT Post subject: Re: proposed snow ordinance makes sense - thanks TC members |
|
|
| Hip Hip Hooray for civility! |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Guest
|
| Posted: Fri, Jul 1 2011, 8:13 pm EDT Post subject: Re: proposed snow ordinance makes sense - thanks TC members |
|
|
| its an ordinance that has no bite to it. If I do not shovel my sidewalk and a cop knocks on the door and I refuse to shovel still, there is nothing that can be done. There is no fine, so why would I shovel? |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Guest
|
| Posted: Fri, Jul 1 2011, 9:07 pm EDT Post subject: Re: proposed snow ordinance makes sense - thanks TC members |
|
|
| Guest wrote: | | its an ordinance that has no bite to it. If I do not shovel my sidewalk and a cop knocks on the door and I refuse to shovel still, there is nothing that can be done. There is no fine, so why would I shovel? |
Well, it shows your character. May I ask who your parents are? |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Guest
|
| Posted: Fri, Jul 1 2011, 9:53 pm EDT Post subject: Re: proposed snow ordinance makes sense - thanks TC members |
|
|
| Guest wrote: | | its an ordinance that has no bite to it. If I do not shovel my sidewalk and a cop knocks on the door and I refuse to shovel still, there is nothing that can be done. There is no fine, so why would I shovel? |
Yes, let's force the TC to add a fine to the ordinance that will show them!! They gave us residents an option to say look we as residents will do the right thing and if asked shovel the walk and maybe just do it without being asked. It allows the Police to make a polite request if we fail. I know if an officer asked me I would not refuse.
I say let's show the TC and neighbors that the faith in the community is correct and we don't need laws that will penalize us.
For the other poster, yes, it is legislating civility. Isn't it sad that 1) it has come to this because the neighbors don't care and 2) people are complaining about it? That to me says more about the poster. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Guest
|
| Posted: Fri, Jul 1 2011, 10:05 pm EDT Post subject: Re: proposed snow ordinance makes sense - thanks TC members |
|
|
First of all, the Press didn't get this right. They frequently screw up these stories. The Township Committee hasn't decided what to do yet, let alone voted on it. There was the suggestion of this non-enforced ordinance discussed but no vote and definitely not uniform agreement from the members. They have another discussion scheduled with more public comments expected.
Second, I have a pretty good opinion of the TC and expect they won't be so silly as to pass an "ordinance" like this. Regardless of what side of the issue you are on, it's just bad governing to pass unenforceable laws. If all you are going to do is make a “suggestion” which is effectively what this would be, just pass a “resolution” doing so and not a legal ordinance. Proper form. Passing an ordinance without teeth is like having a speeding limit that is just a suggestion. Duh.
But really this is just politics. Those against the ordinance on the TC saw an opportunity for a “compromise” that sounds great but has the effect of getting their goal of no ordinance. Personally I support the real ordinance but would rather see it voted down or not voted on then to see the TC make the mistake of looking foolish by voting onto our books this one that makes us look silly because it shouldn’t be an ordinance at all. Also, logically this will have no effect on the issue at all because it’s the status quo. Those speaking out against this ordinance mostly made clear that they don’t currently shovel all their sidewalks and considered doing so a hardship for various reasons. So if they felt strongly enough against doing it to come to a meeting and speak out, why would they change their behavior with this “suggestion”? Also, the worst offenders already have been asked by neighbors, the police and other officials in the past and haven’t complied. So why would anything change with a new legal “suggestion”?
The TC needs to demonstrate its backbone and take a real stand on the issue one way or the other. If a majority wants to vote down a law requiring snow removal, just vote it down. No silly tricks that put ridiculous non-laws on our books. Hopefully a majority will feel otherwise and pass an ordinance that promotes public safety and acknowledges the problem that has thus far not gone away with efforts at civility. Either way, have a real law and vote on it not some parlor trick. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Guest
|
| Posted: Fri, Jul 1 2011, 10:13 pm EDT Post subject: Re: proposed snow ordinance makes sense - thanks TC members |
|
|
| Guest wrote: | First of all, the Press didn't get this right. They frequently screw up these stories. The Township Committee hasn't decided what to do yet, let alone voted on it. There was the suggestion of this non-enforced ordinance discussed but no vote and definitely not uniform agreement from the members. They have another discussion scheduled with more public comments expected.
Second, I have a pretty good opinion of the TC and expect they won't be so silly as to pass an "ordinance" like this. Regardless of what side of the issue you are on, it's just bad governing to pass unenforceable laws. If all you are going to do is make a “suggestion” which is effectively what this would be, just pass a “resolution” doing so and not a legal ordinance. Proper form. Passing an ordinance without teeth is like having a speeding limit that is just a suggestion. Duh.
But really this is just politics. Those against the ordinance on the TC saw an opportunity for a “compromise” that sounds great but has the effect of getting their goal of no ordinance. Personally I support the real ordinance but would rather see it voted down or not voted on then to see the TC make the mistake of looking foolish by voting onto our books this one that makes us look silly because it shouldn’t be an ordinance at all. Also, logically this will have no effect on the issue at all because it’s the status quo. Those speaking out against this ordinance mostly made clear that they don’t currently shovel all their sidewalks and considered doing so a hardship for various reasons. So if they felt strongly enough against doing it to come to a meeting and speak out, why would they change their behavior with this “suggestion”? Also, the worst offenders already have been asked by neighbors, the police and other officials in the past and haven’t complied. So why would anything change with a new legal “suggestion”?
The TC needs to demonstrate its backbone and take a real stand on the issue one way or the other. If a majority wants to vote down a law requiring snow removal, just vote it down. No silly tricks that put ridiculous non-laws on our books. Hopefully a majority will feel otherwise and pass an ordinance that promotes public safety and acknowledges the problem that has thus far not gone away with efforts at civility. Either way, have a real law and vote on it not some parlor trick. |
You are wrong. There is a first reading of the ordinance this coming meeting on July 25th. It was stated at the meeting on Monday that this was going to be the ordinance.
You can have your view, but this will be voted on as an ordinance and 3 of the 4 TC members agreed to this. Dan Mulligan did not. A resolution is nothing. An ordinance gives authority to the Police to ask which they cannot legally do today.
I think this is a good step. I don't understand why someone would demand that fines have to be there to make it work. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Guest
|
| Posted: Sun, Jul 3 2011, 8:27 am EDT Post subject: Re: proposed snow ordinance makes sense - thanks TC members |
|
|
It is common curtsey to remove the snow from your sidewalks, period!
I live in Shadow Oaks and can tell you that there are less than 5 homes that do this regularly. There are children that have to walk in the streets to get to the bus stop, and then stand in the street while waiting for their bus to come. This is dangerous, especially since many people are off to work at the same time as the kids are out waiting for the bus.
I think the TC should pass this and there should be fines. The ironic thing is the majority of Shadow Oaks homeowners have snow blowers - you can't take a few more minutes of your time and clear your sidewalk for the safety of the kids? |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Guest
|
| Posted: Sun, Jul 3 2011, 9:52 am EDT Post subject: Re: proposed snow ordinance makes sense - thanks TC members |
|
|
| Guest wrote: | | Guest wrote: | First of all, the Press didn't get this right. They frequently screw up these stories. The Township Committee hasn't decided what to do yet, let alone voted on it. There was the suggestion of this non-enforced ordinance discussed but no vote and definitely not uniform agreement from the members. They have another discussion scheduled with more public comments expected.
Second, I have a pretty good opinion of the TC and expect they won't be so silly as to pass an "ordinance" like this. Regardless of what side of the issue you are on, it's just bad governing to pass unenforceable laws. If all you are going to do is make a “suggestion” which is effectively what this would be, just pass a “resolution” doing so and not a legal ordinance. Proper form. Passing an ordinance without teeth is like having a speeding limit that is just a suggestion. Duh.
But really this is just politics. Those against the ordinance on the TC saw an opportunity for a “compromise” that sounds great but has the effect of getting their goal of no ordinance. Personally I support the real ordinance but would rather see it voted down or not voted on then to see the TC make the mistake of looking foolish by voting onto our books this one that makes us look silly because it shouldn’t be an ordinance at all. Also, logically this will have no effect on the issue at all because it’s the status quo. Those speaking out against this ordinance mostly made clear that they don’t currently shovel all their sidewalks and considered doing so a hardship for various reasons. So if they felt strongly enough against doing it to come to a meeting and speak out, why would they change their behavior with this “suggestion”? Also, the worst offenders already have been asked by neighbors, the police and other officials in the past and haven’t complied. So why would anything change with a new legal “suggestion”?
The TC needs to demonstrate its backbone and take a real stand on the issue one way or the other. If a majority wants to vote down a law requiring snow removal, just vote it down. No silly tricks that put ridiculous non-laws on our books. Hopefully a majority will feel otherwise and pass an ordinance that promotes public safety and acknowledges the problem that has thus far not gone away with efforts at civility. Either way, have a real law and vote on it not some parlor trick. |
You are wrong. There is a first reading of the ordinance this coming meeting on July 25th. It was stated at the meeting on Monday that this was going to be the ordinance.
You can have your view, but this will be voted on as an ordinance and 3 of the 4 TC members agreed to this. Dan Mulligan did not. A resolution is nothing. An ordinance gives authority to the Police to ask which they cannot legally do today.
I think this is a good step. I don't understand why someone would demand that fines have to be there to make it work. |
Jay Taylor originally wrote an ordinance with fines. In order to try and compromise some members, including Jay, suggested the idea of doing the ordinance without fines. It has not been voted on so anything can still happen, just as the original ordinance Jay wrote has now changed. At least one of the 3 people who you think supported it at the last meeting believes fines would be better and isn’t comfortable with the “compromise.” Hard to say how he will vote.
What "authority" do the police have in this ordinance other than to ask people to do the right thing? It's silly. The people currently not doing it are making a choice not to, so why would this unenforceable ordinance change their minds? They didn’t come to the TC meeting arguing they don’t want a law but will start to shovel anyway. They came to fight for the right to not do it, so of course they will continue not to. I've spoken with a member of the police force who laughed at this proposal. Without any consequence the ordinance is meaningless.
Why do we need "steps" as you say? Either you believe we don't need people to shovel their sidewalks, as some believe, or you believe it is important for public safety and we should have an enforceable law like most municipalities. A step implies we’re still working toward an enforceable law. This “pretty please do the right thing” ordinance will modify no behavior. So it will accomplish nothing. At least Dan Mulligan, while I disagree with his conclusion, recognizes that. The TC needs a real ordinance and a vote either for convenience or public safety. Take a stand but don’t put useless words on our books. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Guest
|
| Posted: Sun, Jul 3 2011, 10:09 am EDT Post subject: Re: proposed snow ordinance makes sense - thanks TC members |
|
|
"What "authority" do the police have in this ordinance other than to ask people to do the right thing? It's silly. The people currently not doing it are making a choice not to, so why would this unenforceable ordinance change their minds? "
I disagree. If police knock on my door and tell me to shove my sidewalk, I'll do it ASAP. I don't want people to view my household as a place frequently visited by police. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Guest
|
| Posted: Sun, Jul 3 2011, 10:17 am EDT Post subject: Re: proposed snow ordinance makes sense - thanks TC members |
|
|
| How about just posting the names of the scofflaws on this sight:) |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Guest
|
| Posted: Sun, Jul 3 2011, 10:34 am EDT Post subject: Re: proposed snow ordinance makes sense - thanks TC members |
|
|
| Guest wrote: | "What "authority" do the police have in this ordinance other than to ask people to do the right thing? It's silly. The people currently not doing it are making a choice not to, so why would this unenforceable ordinance change their minds? "
I disagree. If police knock on my door and tell me to shove my sidewalk, I'll do it ASAP. I don't want people to view my household as a place frequently visited by police. |
You're dreaming.
Why don't we ask those who were there to speak against the ordinance because they don't believe they should have to do it if they will start doing it. Of course they won't because they know its not a real law. Name other "enforceable" laws on the books with no consequence. Heck, we even have fines for silly things like not paying to register an indoor-only cat in this town. Ridiculous. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
