Cats, dogs and the Golden Rule

"A dog doesn't care if you're rich or poor, educated or illiterate, clever or dull. Give him your heart and he will give you his."

Marley & Me

"No family or person shall own, harbor or keep in its possession more than two dogs or cats on any residentially zoned lot without the prior approval of the Common Council, which may be conditional, except that a litter of pups or kittens or a portion of a litter may be kept for not more than eight weeks from birth. If more than one family resides on a residential lot, then only a total of four dogs or cats shall be allowed on the residential lot unless prior approval is obtained from the Common Council."

Section 18-32 (c) of the City of Chetek Code of Ordinances

He was a great dog

Pets. They make our lives richer and fuller by having them. In our nearly twenty-seven years in Chetek we've been blessed with a number of them – a couple of dogs, a couple of cats, some goldfish, a guinea pig and a rabbit to boot. Our first dog, Buster, though he was a runner by inclination and we frequently were bailing him out of the pokey, was amazing. It broke our hearts the day he died. Jack, our other dog, well...not so much but that's another story.

More often than not lately, pets have been an agenda item at the city council meeting in the form of a pet waiver. Like so many other things in our lives as members of this community, even the number of pets we own is governed by the Code.

The physical Code of Ordinances is pretty thick. The on-line version is far more user-friendly

How many?

Two. That's what we're allowed. Not two cats and two dogs but a cat and a dog or two dogs and no cats or two cats and no dogs. However you do the math at the end of the day if you have more than two critters you are not legal.

Why only two?

Well, I think you can figure it out. Some of us are just bleeding hearts for our canine and feline friends and when no limits are enforced, we collect them out of compassion for their welfare. But what about your neighbors? People bristle at that question because frequently their first response to that question is that their neighbors “should mind their own beeswax”. But according to our Code,  

The keeping of a large number of dogs or cats within the City for a considerable period of time detracts from and, in many instances, is detrimental to, healthful and comfortable life in such areas. The keeping of a large number of dogs or cats is, therefore, declared a public nuisance. Sec 18-32(a)

The truth is we may live in a rural area but if you live in town you don't live in the country. We just live too close to each other to allow small packs of dogs or prides of cats to proliferate next door. So years ago the limit was set at two.

Waiver needed:

As someone who has run for public office twice now, I can verify this for certain: many individuals in our city do not comply with the two pet rule. I know. I've met several of their canine members of their households at more than a few homes as I have gone door to door. Now it could be that some of these individuals have waivers on file at city hall which allows them to have more than two pets at their home. My hunch is, however, that a lot of folk just don't bother to go through the relatively painless process of securing a waiver which would allow them to legally have more than two pets at their address.

It works like this. A certain household member who already has two pets suddenly has to take in two more as her son, who serves in the military, just was deployed overseas for the next year and has no where for his dogs to go. She fills out the waiver explaining what kind of dogs they are and how long she plans on holding them. It then goes before the council for approval. In every case thus far that I've been serving as mayor the council has never denied a reasonable request. They frequently set limits to the waiver (e.g., the mother may keep her sons' dogs until the son returns from his deployment overseas) but they usually accommodate the pet owner's request. The fee per waiver is $25.

License required.

If your pooch is five months old or older, he needs to have a license (per Sec 18-93(a)). That's not our rule. That's the State's. At the present time there are no licenses required for cats (but you still can only have two). As part of licensing you need to show proof that your dog has been immunized against rabies (18-93(d)). Licenses are good for a year. $6/if your dog is spayed or neutered. $12 if they're not fixed. Again, those fees are set by the State with which the city fully complies with.

But what about dogs running loose?

Well, of course, they're not supposed to be (18-25) but as an owner of a former “runner”, sometimes they break their leash while tied up in the back yard or pull out of their collar and go out on a lark. We don't have a city dog catcher so who do you call if a dog comes sniffing into your yard? As much as City Clerk-Treasurer Carmen Newman loves dogs, don't call her. Call the police. Through email, I asked Chief Ambrozaitis about this very thing and this is what he wrote back:

“We handle all dog complaints on a call by call basis. We have a policy concerning dangerous dogs, and [we handle this] when receiving a call on them. As far as dogs at large we handle them the best way we can. We try to find the owners via social media, word of mouth, etc... If this does not work and if a county deputy is available they will transport to Happy Tails in Barronett. We no longer take them to Barron as the Humane Society does not have a contract with the county anymore. Handling animals in the city has become some what of a problem but so far we have been able to handle them without any issues.”

(Note: Chetek PD will not take any dogs to Happy Tails Pet Boarding & Daycare as Barronett is 38 miles away and that would mean the only officer on duty would be gone a couple of hours making sure Fido is taken care of. It's not a very good use of police resources.) I recently spoke with Officer Jessica Larson about this and she told me that when she gets a loose dog call she tries to coax the wandering pup into the back of her squad and take it to the shop. Then via Facebook the word gets out and soon after the owner usually stops by the PD to pick up their lost dog  - usually.

And what about other animals?

Well, in case you were wondering, if you live within the city limits you can't own a polar bear or an alligator let alone any other federally protected animals (18-213a). You can own a snake so long as its not poisonous but otherwise all dangerous critters such as cheetahs, elephants or hippos are verboten (18-213e) (see the extended list in the Code, if only for your own amusement). You can own bees (which, strictly speaking, are not animals) but if you do and you do not live in a neighborhood that is zoned agricultural you're going to need to obtain a conditional use permit which often includes a public hearing so your neighbors can weigh in on the matter (see 18-263 thru 18-265). And let me state for the record that you can't shoot those pesky squirrels that get into your bird feeder. They may deserve it but the Code deems that cruel and unusual punishment (see 18-184). Sorry, dear wife, but you can't do it.

For the time being

You can own rabbits but you can't raise them to sell them (18-214). And at the present time the City does not allow anyone to own chickens (although every year we are approached by individuals who query if the council will ever reconsider that position). Otherwise all other farm animals – pigs, cows, horses, goats - are not permitted within the city limits (see 118-84c). Again, if you want country air then maybe looking for property in the surrounding townships is your best option.

There are reasons that all these rules are on the books. Not only are they similar (or identical) to other communities like ours but they also generally govern our civil interaction with each other. If we lived in a more perfect world, “love thy neighbor” and “the golden rule” would suffice, regardless of your individual religious persuasion. But we don't. So in the interim we live by the laws set by the State and the Municipal Code. It helps keep our town from truly going to the dogs.

Funny you should ask: what's the big deal about that new house being built by the airport?

Sec. 118-89. - Airport heights limitation zone.

Airport hazard means any structure or object of natural growth, which obstructs the air space required for the flight of aircraft in landing or taking off at an airport or is otherwise hazardous to such landing or taking off.

(c) Height limitation zones.

(1) Except as otherwise provided in this section, no structure shall be constructed, installed, altered, located or permitted to remain after such construction, installation, alteration or location to a height in excess of the height limit indicated on the map referred to in Subsection (b) of this section.

(2) Except as otherwise provided in this section, no trees shall be allowed to grow to a height in excess of the height limit indicated on the map referred to in Subsection (b) of this section.

(3) Except as otherwise provided in this section, no drones shall be operated at or above a height in excess of the height limit indicated on the map referred to in Subsection (b) of this section.

(d)Exceptions. 

The restrictions contained in Subsection (b) of this section shall not apply to objects which are less than 35 feet in height above ground level at the object site within one-half-mile of the airport boundary or to structures less than 50 feet in height above ground within the area beginning one-half mile from the airport boundary and extending to one mile from the airport boundary or to structures less than 100 feet in height above the ground within the area beginning one mile from the airport boundary and extending to three miles from the airport boundary.

An old Google map of our grass runway as it pictures only one house on Nielsen Lane

If you subscribe to the Chetek Alert you know that last month we had a bit of a dust-up during the City Council meeting over a new house being built on Nielsen Lane near the grassy runway. A small contingent of local pilots appointed commercial pilot Al Knowlton to speak on their behalf alerting the city what a safety hazard that house presents.

Here's the issue: a house rises near the end of the grass runway

“Since statistics show most fatal crashes occur during takeoff, the homes at the end of the runway could be deadly obstacles. They should not have been built in the first place. We don't build houses within 50 feet of a freeway for those reasons. Cars go fast.” (Al Knowlton as quoted in the Chetek Alert 5/16/18)

Greg Brodt, another local pilot who has similar safety concerns about the construction of this house, privately messaged me the following questions:

Did the city issue a building permit [for the dwelling] off the west end of the runaway?

If so, this could be very dangerous. Did the airport commission approve it or make any recommendations? Were there any concerns that the State had?

Let me answer those questions. First of all, Yes. The city did issue a building permit for this house.

Every house that is built within the city limits has to be okayed by Joe Atwood the City Inspector before it's built. This house is no different. The inferred concern about the height of the house does not apply. According to Section 118-89 anything under 35 feet tall within one-half mile of the airport is legit. I think the peak of the house being built is slightly under 25-feet tall. That's where our jurisdiction ends. If it's under 35 feet (and clearly it is) than we cannot tell someone not to build in that spot.

As to the question regarding the airport commission approving or not approving the construction of the house (which the city cannot refuse a permit to the owner anyway), technically speaking there is no airport commission any longer. Last year after several meetings in a row not able to meet for lack of quorum it was the recommendation to the council that we disband the commission which we voted unanimously to do. From that moment on the city council essentially became the airport commission and Public Works Director Dan Knapp airport manager. As to the concerns specific to this house none were raised before they dug the hole as the airport manager had none to make.

“I'd hate to see someone crash into it or them to complain about noise” (Greg Brodt). As would I. As would all of us. I certainly understand the pilots are motivated by concerns for public safety but again there is nothing the city can do to restrict this home owner from building their home on Nielsen Lane. I also agree with Greg about noise issues: If you build your house next to an airport than you forfeit your right to complain about the noise airplanes make. Agreed. There's plenty of people on South Street and Phillips Street who have come accustomed to the sound of planes coming in and taking off. The folks on Nielsen Lane are no different.

This is what nobody wants ever to see at Southworth Airport

In my brief tenure as mayor council meetings can get kinda sporty at times as people for and against an issue sound off before the council and at times at each other. Obviously it's because they care about the matter at hand. Our job as the council is to listen respectfully and make the best call we can based on the current ordinances that govern our daily lives. In this case, our airport manager informs us that while in the event of a catastrophic event a plane could crash into a house there is no code that limits the construction of this home. Let's hope we never have cause to regret that the city never purchased the navigation rights to these properties back in 2003 when this subdivision was created.

Gambling with the tax-payers' money?

“You got to know when 

to hold 'em,
Know when to fold 'em,
Know when to walk away,
And know when to run.
You never count your money
When you're sittin' at the table.
There'll be time enough for countin'
When the dealing's done.”

- The Gambler by Kenny Rogers

If you haven't heard (and my guess is you probably have) there's a whole lot of municipal dollars that have been exchanging hands lately - or about to exchange - and if you're like me you may be just a mite curious as to where all this money is coming from.

Central States

You see the fine print?
That's what a bill for $2Mil looks like

For starters, the settlement with Central States. On Good Friday, Carmen and I affixed our signatures to a 10-year note for $770K (and some change) to officially exit the Central States Pension Fund, the pension for those members of our public works crew who belong to the Teamsters. The original bill for our fair share of the liability was plus $2 million dollars but through an accepted industry formula our attorney negotiated this amount down to $770K. The 10-year note amortized over 20 years comes to about what we were originally paying each month to Central States (approximately $4,500). In July 2017, when we ceased sending pension funds to the union, we began funding our public works crews' personal retirement fund (otherwise known as a 457 plan) at the same amount we had been sending to the Teamsters. In other words, we'll be double-dipping for some time to come - paying on this note, continuing to contribute to the guys' pensions. This money comes out of the general fund.

And just like that we committed ourselves to $770K

More new sidewalks coming soon

Then there's the new sidewalks. A few weeks ago the City Council approved $50K worth of new sidewalks this summer. This includes among other sections:

Stout Street: from Second Street to the Chetek Area Alano Club (next to City Hall)

• Moore Street: from the Police Station to Second Street
• Knapp Street: Corner of Knapp and Second Street by Time and Again
• Knapp Street: the section of walk in front of Jason Fostvedt's new building (the former Chetek Beauty Salon)
• Knapp Street: Corner of Knapp and Third Street by the former Cabin Fever
• Knapp Street: Corner of Third and Knapp at Synergy Co-op (formerly Lakeland Co-op) side of the street
• Knapp Street: from the old Car Quest building to the railroad tracks
• Main Street Park: the section in front of Main Street Park on Second Street

Last year when our sidewalk replacement campaign began in earnest the decision was made that no business would be assessed for the expense since its to everyone's benefit to have safe and aesthetically pleasing walkways in the Central Business District. So if no one is being assessed for the expense of tearing up and replacing the new walks where is the money coming from? Well, we have tapped into a source to fund this project – it's one of our capital improvement funds.

If there is one thing I've learned since being elected mayor is that there are funds always being set-aside for later purchases. When Dan goes to buy a new truck (i.e., a new-to-us truck) money has been set aside for that very thing already. Same goes with any new piece of equipment we may need or require. You can call it a “rainy day” fund if you like but we just can't call it that (according to the rules set by the State). The main thing to know is nobody was taxed for the sidewalks. We just took the money from this account to pay for these new sidewalks.

New owners of the Chetek Cafe building

And then there's the talk of the town – the two-way deal of Chetek Cafe purchasing Bob's Grill and the city purchasing the old cafe. Why would the city get involved in a deal like this? Simple: we're interested in Norbert's property (i.e., Chetek Cafe). Actually, its a win-win-win situation: Dwayne “Frog” Trowbridge has been wanting to get out of Bob's Grill for some time, Norbert & Patty have been wanting to expand and we see potential in their piece of real estate. What is the city going to do with a cafe? Well, we're not opening up a hot dog stand that's for sure. I prefer to look at it this way: we have a Police Department in an old post office and a library in an old wood shop. If....(and that is a BIG if) the Chetek Area Alano Club (who is housed in the old fire hall right next to the current city hall) we're willing to sell their property back to the city then we would end up with half of the block. If all that were to come together (and the stars were to align) we would retain the services of people who do community development to help us envision what we might be able to do with that half block. Perhaps a future multi-purpose governmental facility which would house both Police Department, City Hall and Library – or some other combination? If you've wondered aloud, 'What are they thinking?' well, that's what we're thinking.

Part of the deal is that this iconic sign will go to the museum

Norbert will refurbish and take this sign with him to his new digs

Are we shooting too high? Well you know what Emerson said, “Hitch your wagon to a star.” Worst case scenario and the Alano Club chooses to hold on to their building and our best laid plans run awry we still end up with a prime piece of real estate on Second Street that we can market to a future business. If you're a person like myself whose income doesn't really change from year to year, it seems like a big risk and a lot of zeros. But in municipal spending terms, $170K is a pretty good price and an acceptable risk to take on. This too would be paid out of that aforementioned capital improvement fund at no additional expense to the tax payers.

The light may be turning off at Bob's but Spudniks will remain - that, too, is part of the deal

There's more to tell you about but this is just the stuff that I can talk about at the present time. After all, it would not be good form to talk particulars about matters that the council hasn't even been fully apprised about yet. Am I sounding like some high roller who's flush and in a hurry to get over to the St Croix Casino on the other side of the county? Other than the payout to Central States (which was a necessity) I guess these expenditures are a bit of a gamble - but it's a good bet, an investment in the future of our city that we're hoping reaps rich dividends for all of us.

Here we go again: In the running for my second term as mayor

Well, in case you forgot, there's an election coming up right after Easter. It's our local mayoral election and at this time I'm running unopposed. (There's still time for a person to run a write-in campaign but before they do that they should check in with City Hall and make sure they understand the rules as to how it works when your name is not on the official ballot.) Wards 2 and 4 are also up for election and for the first time in twenty years Cliff Bronstad will not be running for office. For two decades Cliff has been the Ward 2 alderman and he's decided that that's long enough. Denise Moran, who resides at Lone Oak, has submitted her name for alder-person and is presently running unopposed as is Ward 4 alderman Mark Edwards.

After 20 years he's calling it quits

Two years ago I decided to run for office. Prior to that time I had served in a number of capacities on a number of boards and organizations but always by default; i.e., nobody else wanted the honor and I seemed to be the only one willing. But in 2016 I ran in my first-in-a-lifetime election and was surprisingly successful. I had no agenda. No ax to grind. No scores to settle. Truth to be told, I hardly knew or understood what a mayor did but if the people of Chetek were willing to give me a shot I was willing to take it. And they did.

It's harder than you know to get these folks on camera

For the most part, it's been a wonderful experience. I have learned a lot about how our city works and runs. It's not by accident, I can assure you, nor by luck. What I have come to truly appreciate is that our city runs as well as it does because we have wonderful public servants who keep it running so. Public Works Director Dan Knapp and his crew are top notch in keeping our streets clear and clean. Chief Ron Ambrozaitis and his small but faithful force keep us safe and secure. City Inspector Joe Atwood is not only competent but also compassionate as he works with people to successfully resolve matters before having to resort to levying any kind of fine. And last but certainly not least the ladies at City Hall – Utility Clerk Karen Zimmerman, Deputy City Clerk & Treasurer Cassandra Larson and the belle of the ball herself, City Clerk Carmen Newman – are second to none in responding to each and every issue that arises in a given week.

She hates getting her picture taken
but there is no job that is beneath her

I recall that when I was running for office back in early 2016, at the Town Hall meeting that The Chetek Alert facilitated at Chetek Lanes I was asked that given my lack of experience how could I be certain that I could successfully serve as mayor. Spontaneously, I responded: “Two words come to mind: 'Carmen Newman'.” Honestly, I had no idea just how accurate that answer really was. In fact, when it comes to city business when in doubt, ask Carmen. She's like the female version of J.K. Simmons in those Farmers Insurance commercials - “We know a thing or two because we've seen a thing or two.” Over the past two years I've had a plethora of conversations regarding city ordinances, council meetings and committee activity with Carmen either in person or on the phone. Frankly, when it comes to all things regarding our city she's better than Google. Much better. I am so very grateful for her coaching and her input as I have sought to fulfill the duties of my office.

These girls aren't afraid to get their hands dirty

But lest I forget, the mayor certainly doesn't serve alone. There are two other groups that should be acknowledged for the role they play in the administration of our city: the City Council and the Plan Commission. In my first term, I am so grateful for the perspective I have gained from the experience of both these groups. These are the people who give their thumb's up or thumb's down to all kinds of decisions and endeavors – be it a new business (e.g., The Mill), a new purchase (e.g., the new garbage truck) or a new hire. While the City Council members are compensated for serving when you take into account the amount of time they spend at committee and council meetings, as well as being available to the public that they may express their concerns, it's better that they don't do the math. They serve because they care. The same goes for the members of the Plan Commission but in their case they're all volunteers who serve the city gratis. We all should be grateful that they do.

The first council I served with

So, what am I most pleased about that has occurred since taking office in April 2016? In no particular order of importance or significance:

• That the County Board of Supervisors agreed with our request to increase the speed limit on Highway SS as you head north of town from 25 mph to 35 mph (April 2017).
• New sidewalks that went in along Second Street and on Moore Street by The Center (September 2017).

Out with the old!

In with the new!

• The purchase of the old Jost Law building adjacent to The Center. (December 2016). The hope is to raze the building by this fall in order to put in a parking lot for the patrons of the community center.

Hopefully torn down later this year to make room for parking

• The purchase of the Moulette property on Moore Street as an expansion of Main Street Park (August 2017). My hope is to see public restroom facilities installed there in the not-to-distant future.

The addition to Main Street Park

• The successful extraction of the City from the wake created by the “sinking” of the titanic Central States Pension Plan (February 2018).

Mind you, I'm not taking sole credit for these accomplishments as the mayor is only one voice in the multiple conversations that occur to make these decisions come about. Real credit goes to the city council members who have motioned to move forward on all these endeavors – and so many others.

If I am re-elected, here's a couple of things I'm hoping to see progress on during my second term:

• 

  Still more work to be done

  Ongoing progress on replacing old and deteriorating sidewalks in the business district.
• Creating a parking lot adjacent to The Center.
• Developing a comprehensive park plan for all our parks but specifically Southworth, Phillips (“Beach”) and Airport Parks.
• Developing a long-term beautification program for our downtown area.

(I've got other ideas but it is, after all, only a two-year term and one must be realistic).

I don't mind telling you,
that was fun

I think one of the greatest things of being mayor is the opportunity to meet all kinds of people whether they're residents at Atrium, students at Roselawn, business owners from town or big wigs from out of town (as in the thrill of meeting Governor Walker last year when he came to C-WHS/MS for a visit). During the last two years I have sat down and had coffee with residents at Atrium once a month (“Coffee with the Mayor”), ate regularly at The Center on Fridays, broadcast monthly with WJMC radio host Amber Gonske, been available to speak to various groups as well as to students from Roselawn Elementary to UW-BC, regularly submitted video and text to the mayor's Facebook page (Jeff Martin, Mayor) and by my count to

"Look, Mom, I'm on the radio!"

date have posted 45 entries at my on-line blog “The Mayor's Mind (or at least a piece of it)” as well as submitted a dozen or more articles to the Chetek Alert which they have kindly published with very little editing every time. The whole point of all this is to be accessible as possible to the citizens I promised to serve. With me the door is always open and while we may not agree what's the best way to resolve a particular matter, I'd like to think I'm open to what others have to say about it. It's our town, after all, and we all have a vested interest in how it works and runs.

It's been fun and I'm hoping to continue to serve this community as mayor for another two years. I'm grateful and blessed by the honor that has been bestowed on me and I hope to continue to prove that this trust has been well placed.

Whaddya think about...a residential lawn parking regulation?

Not anyone's home in Chetek...but it could be

“The following words, terms and phrases, when used in this division, shall have the meanings ascribed to them in this section, except where the context clearly indicates a different meaning:

Disassembled, inoperable, scrap or wrecked motor vehicles, truck bodies, tractors, trailers means motor vehicles, recreational vehicles, truck bodies, tractors, farm machinery or trailers in such state of physical or mechanical ruin as to be incapable of propulsion, being operated upon the public streets or highways or which is otherwise not in a safe or legal condition for operation on public streets or highways due to missing or inoperative parts, flat or removed tires, expired or missing license plates or other defects.

Unlicensed motor vehicles, truck bodies, tractors or trailers means motor vehicles, truck bodies, tractors, recreational vehicles or trailers which do not bear lawful current license plates.

(Code 2005, § 10-5-8(b))

Sec. 102-363. - Definitions in the City of Chetek Code of Ordinances

In her mind, it looks like this...

In my nearly two years in office I really haven't received a lot of complaints. But of the ones I have received definitely the most common is a neighbor complaining about another neighbor whose yard is full of cars or other assorted stuff. At last month's city council meeting during the Public Comment time, in fact, a neighbor went on record about her neighbor. In her words, “When I look out my kitchen window I feel like I'm looking into a salvage yard” (or words to that effect). When I suggested that she take up the matter with City Inspector Joe Atwood she assured me that she already had and both her and Joe informed me that it was, in fact, a police matter (Chief Ron was out of town at a police seminar and not present).

When it comes to our city ordinances about vehicles as far as I understand it there are essentially two requirements for the things that we drive around in: they have to be currently licensed and they have to move (i.e., they have to be working vehicles). If they don't run or if they're not licensed the owner can be cited. (In my experience with the city, the owner is normally given ample warning and time to move any vehicle or license it before a citation is issued.)

This is how you can read our local "Bible" on
everything about living in Chetek

(If you care to research this for yourself go to our city's website, click on the “Government” tab and then click on “Code of Ordinances” and you can have access to our “Bible” that covers all the rules, restrictions, and requirements that govern all of us who live within the city limits.) I inserted the word “vehicles” in the search window and found the group of ordinances that govern what can and cannot be stored in our driveways or our yards, including:

• Section 102-363 – Definitions (see above) and the rule that says if it's in on your property it has to run and it has to be currently licensed. The prohibition against people storing old washers, dryers, refrigerators, etc. in their backyard is also found here. If it's junk, it shouldn't be stored in plain sight.
• Sec. 102-364. - Storage of scrap vehicles and appliances on private property.

That '57 that you have been meaning to work on in your spare time, it better have a license and it has to be road ready if one of our officers responds to a complaint from one of your neighbors.

Great weekend project but if it's in your driveway,
it has to work

• Sec. 102-366. - Enforcement. Joe was right, of course. It is a police matter. But again, the guys are not about to crash in like stormtroopers to get you to clean up your yard. They usually begin in low gear and encourage people to either have a plan to move the vehicle within the next few days after they stop by the first time.

• Sec. 118-171. - Storage of trucks, tractors and road machinery. A bus driver can't park their bus in their driveway overnight or for any extended period of time. That goes for your tractor that you picked up at an auction somewhere.

Stopping by for lunch? Sure.
 Parking there at night? No can do.

The point behind these ordinances, of course, is to keep our neighborhoods from descending into the appearance of salvage yards from the “collectors” in our community who either can't afford to dispose of an old appliance or sees potential in an old beater that just needs a little TLC. My neighbor used to have a yard full of collector cars in varied states of repair or disrepair. Honestly, it looked like a car lot most of the time. And he once quipped that if I got tired of cutting our grass he had a few more cars he could store there. Someone must have complained because now he cuts his grass like I have continued to cut mine.

Looks a little sketchy to me

Here's the thing: while we do have ordinances that limit the kind of vehicle we can store at our home we have no ordinance that limits how many we can store at our home. If I could afford to license and insure, say, eight vehicles I certainly have the yard to park them on. But maybe we should have an ordinance that limits vehicles per household according to how many can be parked in our driveway or designated parking area. We have an ordinance that limits how many cats or dogs I can own (2). It's essentially to prevent me from creating an animal shelter in my backyard. If anything more than two dogs or cats is considered a nuisance, wouldn't it be fair to say that if it can't be parked in a driveway or other designated parking area it's potentially an eyesore as well? We have an aesthetics ordinance (so people keep their house painted) and even a weed ordinance (so people cut their grass). Why not a residential lawn parking regulation?

I asked Joe Atwood if anything like this had ever been kicked around and he told me that to the best of his knowledge it hadn't. He went on line and found that the city of South Bend, Indiana (a wee bit bigger than our town obviously) does have such an ordinance and reads like this:

Sec. 14-42. - Parking prohibited in residential lawn areas; limited exceptions.
(a) It shall be unlawful to park a motor vehicle in a front yard, in a side yard, or in a rear yard which abuts a street of a lot zoned for a residential use or dwelling, except that parking shall be permitted on a hard-surfaced driveway or approved parking space. 
(b) Parking of any motor vehicle in violation of the regulations set forth in this article is deemed a public nuisance. 

I'd like to know your thoughts on this. Maybe it's not a good idea. Maybe I should let sleeping dogs lie and allow Chief Ambrozaitis to handle these things on a case by case basis according to the ordinances already in place. But I also know that Ron has a lot more weightier things to do than to make sure I don't collect junk in my driveway. I know of at least five neighborhoods in our town where this very thing is an ongoing issue. Joe Atwood assures me there are far more than five.

I realize that at certain households there are four or more drivers who each own a vehicle and we certainly wouldn't want to penalize them for doing so (I know when all our kids come home at Christmas our driveway looks like a parking lot and some of us have to park off-site for the weekend.) I also recognize that some folks might resent the city wanting to have any more say than what it already has on what we can and cannot do at our home and in our yard. But on the principle that one man's garbage is another man's gold some of us seem to collect more than our fair share of gold – or garbage, as the case may be, and who's to say which is which? Obviously, it's a matter of perspective and a lot of us see things very differently.