Originally published on Page 1 of the weekly Coast Lake News, Wednesday July 14, 2010.
Part 2 of three parts – Part 1, Part 3

It is important to note that there is no requirement in this new ordinance for a prior complaint, written or otherwise. There
is no definition of “reasonable manner” or “reasonable steps.” In contrast, Oregon Revised Statute (ORS) 90.322(f) Residential Landlord and Tenant Law requires a minimum of a 24 hour notice before the landlord can enter the premises. In this new ordinance, determination of notification is left strictly up to the enforcement official, who alone can decide whether notification is “practical.” On the face of it, this ordinance appears designed to give City officials free and full
rein to target any resident of their choosing in violation of the U.S. Constitution.

At a recent Council meeting, when the issue of the $50,000 lien that the City recently placed on Don Londo’s property (the result of a judgment for nuisance violations) came up, City Attorney Fred Carleton commented that the amount was “a bit excessive.” That amount was arrived at when fines were listed as $200 per day per violation. Carleton later said, on behalf of the City, “We are not after the money; we are after curing the problem.” Given that statement, it is difficult to explain the fact that the recently passed ordinance sets the fines at $750 per violation per day – more than triple the former amount.

Section 1.16.090 of the new ordinance reads:

“As part of a civil action filed to enforce provisions of the Lakeside code, a court may assess a maximum civil penalty of seven hundred fifty dollars ($750.00) per violation of any ordinance for each day during which any person commits, continues, allows or maintains a violation of any provision of the ordinance.”

To be fair, it is possible that the Mayor, Councilors and City Attorney did not intend to violate the Constitution or to go “after the money.” Those portions of the Ordinance might have been an oversight that could have been discovered and changed with more input from the public. That input was prevented by the secretive actions surrounding the adoption of the ordinance.

According to the Oregon Public Meetings Law, ORS 192.620,

“The Oregon form of government requires an informed public aware of the deliberations and decisions of governing bodies and the information upon which such decisions were made. It is the intent of ORS 192.610 to 192.690 that decisions of governing bodies be arrived at openly.”

ORS 192.610, defines “Decision” as “any determination, action, vote or final disposition upon a motion, proposal, resolution, order, ordinance or measure on which a vote of a governing body is required, at any meeting at which a quorum
is present.”
And ORS 192.640 (1) which addresses public notice says,

“The governing body of a public body shall provide for and give public notice, reasonably calculated to give actual notice to interested persons including news media which have requested notice, of the time and place for holding regular meetings. The notice shall also include a list of the principal subjects anticipated to be considered at the meeting,
but this requirement shall not limit the ability of a governing body to consider additional subjects.”