I must kill the constitution!

Once again the Gargoyle Leader puts on kid gloves while battling a monster;

Review the way that city code is enforced across the board and find a better way to make it fair.

Earlier in this editorial you said what is wrong with code enforcement; IT’S UNCONSTITUTIONAL. The review process is over, we know what will make it fair; get rid of the administrative appeals process and let citizens fight their citations in front of a judge.

It’s fortunate that new Sioux Falls Mayor Mike Huether already had called for just such a review during his campaign, saying that consolidating the process across the various departments that oversee city code might be the best solution.

Consolidation will help the administrative part of code enforcement and save tax payers money, but it does nothing to solve the problem. It is really quite simple;

• Fire anyone directly involved with this mess

• Totally destruct the process as it is now and start from scratch

• Allow citizens to defend themselves in a court of law

This isn’t freaking rocket science, it is constitutional rights. It is a shame, that a person who has given so much to Americans as a combat vet had to spend $40,000 of his own money to prove the obvious.

The bigger question though is why is the Gargoyle Leader using kid gloves on this topic? It’s simple, they have contributed to the flawed system in a round about way. After one of their employees was killed by a careless driver they pushed to put in red light cameras, another convoluted city endeavor that doesn’t allow citizens to fight their charges in front of a judge. Funny how the AL Ed Board didn’t bring that up in the editorial.

Sorry, you can’t have it both ways, if you want to keep the cameras, you have to ditch the unconstitutionality of them. That means actually ticketing offenders (not cars) and allowing them to argue their charge in front of a judge, or dismantling the robot police.

11 Thoughts on “Review Code Enforcement? Isn’t it a little late for that?

  1. Tom Gerber on May 24, 2010 at 9:41 am said:

    How right you are. This tendency of municipal and other government officials to pass unconstitutional ordinances/laws is creeping tyranny. Here in Sturgis, I warned the Council members, the City Manager, and the Mayor, and gave them specific legal references about court decisions against such actions. Their reaction was to spurn my warnings, and add another such ordinance. Welcome to dictator land.

  2. Plaintiff Guy on May 24, 2010 at 1:29 pm said:

    At city web site, I don’t see any city council meetings for mondays in June.

    Have they realized they have no authority and might as well stay home?

  3. Plaintiff Guy on May 24, 2010 at 1:44 pm said:

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/John_Birch_Society

    Lots of money designated for constitutional cases but wow, they’re way out there.

    Supposedly, they originate from the templars and masons.

  4. Costner on May 24, 2010 at 1:58 pm said:

    l3wis: “Sorry, you can’t have it both ways, if you want to keep the cameras, you have to ditch the unconstitutionality of them. That means actually ticketing offenders (not cars) and allowing them to argue their charge in front of a judge, or dismantling the robot police.”

    The constitutional argument is valid when it comes to due process, but it has no bearing on ticketing the vehicle versus the driver. If it did… every parking ticket ever written would be unconstitutional.

    I’m all for simplying the appeals process on those tickets and allowing a vehicle owner to appeal their case in front of a judge, but no way should they attempt to connect tickets to actual drivers. The man power and margin for error are way, way too high.

  5. John2 on May 24, 2010 at 4:22 pm said:

    “Make it fair”? What the heck are they saying. It’s UNCONSTITUTIONAL – what will the Argus grouse for next, to make censorship of political speech or of the press . . . (here it comes . . .) fair?

    Fair is a four-letter word. Fair is an outdoor circus with a merry-go-round and a ferris wheel. Fair has NOTHING to do with CONSTITUTIONALITY.

  6. l3wis on May 24, 2010 at 5:19 pm said:

    “but no way should they attempt to connect tickets to actual drivers.”

    Actually, other cities have camera’s that take a picture of the driver also . . . so it is possible.

  7. Costner on May 25, 2010 at 7:13 am said:

    Actually, other cities have camera’s that take a picture of the driver also . . . so it is possible.

    And many of those cities are now having the cameras shut down and/or invalidated because of it. The cost and burden just isn’t worth it – the system we have in place was specifically chosen because it is the easiest to enforce with the least overhead and the lowest concern for appeals.

    We don’t need people running through that light wearing masks just to make a point, and we sure don’t need them clogging up the court system with claims that the tall chubby balding guy driving the car is an entirely different tall chubby balding guy who is in court claiming it wasn’ him.

  8. l3wis on May 25, 2010 at 7:45 am said:

    Seems you are making a good argument for us to get rid of them. They are more trouble then what they are worth.

  9. Costner on May 25, 2010 at 12:42 pm said:

    I think once they settle the court case about the constitutionality of them once and for all then they will be fine. Once you have an established precedent then they could easily apply it to other intersections.

    I’m all for due process and think the system needs some changes to allow for a faster and streamlined appeals process, but the core concept of monitored intersections is fine by me. I actually wish we had more of them as red light running continues to be a significant problem in this city.

  10. Mostly because people are not paying attention. Saw a guy blow one the other day while texting.

  11. Plaintiff Guy on May 26, 2010 at 8:17 am said:

    I don’t text, I numeric.

    10-4, What’s your 20.

Post Navigation