Right here in Coos County we have an excellent example of how a free press and a true democracy are supposed to work. As reported in Coast Lake News and on this blog, Jessica LLoyd-Rogers reported on what might have become an expensive policy blunder in the guise of a nuisance abatement ordinance authored by Lakeside City Counsel, Fred Carleton. Carleton, who also doubles as counsel for the City of Bandon, drafted an ordinance that threatened to tread on the 4th Amendment rights of Lakeside residents.
Thanks to Coast Lake News calling attention to the ‘defects’ in the ordinance, Carleton is now backpedaling and recommending the city council rescind the ordinance. This is the power of the press in action. Without this story and the resultant backlash from rightly outraged citizens, the ordinance would have been enacted unchallenged leaving the city vulnerable to civil liability. This is the job of the press in a democratic society.
Somebody should remind The World of this fact. Two weeks after Coast Lake News broke the story, The World reports on the ordinance ‘defect’ and gives no attribution the other newspaper.
Read this exchange between Clark Walworth, editor at The World and a reader as appalled as I am.
Subject Clark’s response to: The World according to Dr. Seuss
Sender Bob Fischer
Recipient Mary Geddry
Date Today 00:48
To protect your privacy, remote images are blocked in this message. Display imagesOh, well now, that clears that up. …Bob
Begin forwarded message:
From: “Clark Walworth”
Date: July 28, 2010 5:29:41 PM PDT
To: “Bob Fischer”
Subject: RE: For Your Information: The World according to Dr. SeussMr. Fischer,
The main distinction I see between the two versions is that the first is an expression of the writer’s viewpoint, while the second is a news story. Reporters for The World are not allowed to level unsupported accusations based on their own interpretation of events. For that reason, statements such as “violate residents’ Fourth Amendment rights” and “a pattern of secrecy and targeting citizens” could not appear in Ms. Musicar’s account.
Please don’t misunderstand my explanation. I don’t mean to criticize Ms. Lloyd-Rogers for engaging in spirited advocacy of her viewpoint. Such advocacy is her constitutional right, and Lakeside no doubt is enriched by her efforts. The World, however, practices a different variety of journalism. I hope you will recognize the value of seeing a dispassionate, factual report in addition to Ms. Lloyd-Rogers more personal interpretation.
Clark Walworth
Publisher and Editor
The WorldFrom: Bob Fischer
Sent: Tuesday, July 27, 2010 10:28 PM
To: Undisclosed recipients:
Subject: For Your Information: The World according to Dr. SeussI have sent this to the Bandon City Council, the City Manager, and to my progressive friends. I want you to receive a copy from me.
BobRecently, Carol and I bought one of our nephews some Dr. Seuss books at a Fred Meyers up north, and the clerk at the checkout stand said he loves Dr. Seuss because that’s how he learned to read, and especially because when he was in college he dropped acid, and every time he did it the world looked just like a story by Dr. Seuss. He said he figures Dr. Seuss was an acid freak, and that’s why he wrote the the kinds of books he did.
There could be something to that.
Here is the short version of the Lakeside City ordinance written by Jessica Lloyd-Rogers of the Coast Lake News in Lakeside. It appeared in Blue Oregon.
Lakeside, Oregon decides that the 4th Amendment doesn’t apply here
By Jessica Lloyd-Rogers of Lakeside, Oregon. Jessica is the editor and publisher of the Coast Lake News, a weekly print newspaper that serves Lakeside and the surrounding area.With unintended irony, the Lakeside City Council unanimously voted in their July meeting to violate residents’ Fourth Amendment rights when they passed an ordinance which allows city officials or designees to enter private property at will to search for code violations without a prior complaint.
Despite public comments from City Attorney Frederick J. Carleton that, “We are not after the money, we are after curing the problem,”the new ordinance also more than tripled fines from $200 per day per violation to $750 per day per violation.
To be fair, it is possible that the Mayor Pro Tem Rod Schilling, Councilors and the City Attorney did not intend to violate the U.S. Constitution or “go after the money”. Those portions of the ordinance might have been an oversight that could have been discovered and changed with input from the public. That input was prevented by the secretive actions surrounding the adoption of the ordinance.
There was no public notice and the item was not listed on the agenda. Brought up under “Items Not on the Agenda” the Ordinance was referred to only by number and once by title before being immediately adopted without discussion.
Not content with violating the Fourth Amendment and Oregon’s Public Meeting Law, the Council’s procedure violates the City Charter and continues a pattern of secrecy and targeting citizens. And, of course, these are the folks who all ran on a platform of ‘open and transparent’ government.
July 22, 2010Here is the same story the way it appeared in The World. There are no sneaky and illegal procedures by the City Council. That’s all gone like a fleeting thought, and there is no Fourth Amendment violation, nothing about illegal searches, or trespass, or violations of people’s privacy. Some characters appear who don’t exist. Suddenly, there’s a search warrant to be obtained when none was needed before. Where did that come from? But, the only real problem with the ordinance is it’s kind of vague, and there could be a slight defect, maybe, and perhaps it needs some tweaking… if it gets repealed. Otherwise, it’s all good, and Lakeside will be a better place now, all cleaned up!
Woohoo! I can hear colors and see music! The walls are moving in and out. This stuff is a trip. The World is groovy, man. Here, take one of these and keep reading.
Lakeside questions nuisance law
By Jessica Musicar, Staff Writer | Posted: Tuesday, July 27, 2010 11:00 am
LAKESIDE — Lakeside’s city attorney wants to repeal a new civil violations and enforcement ordinance because it’s too vague and may infringe on people rights.
Although he drafted it, Fred Carleton admits it’s not well written and could have a constitutional defect.
Residents like Naomi Parker agree.
‘I think the wording isn’t so that regular people can even understand the ordinance,” she said.
Parker said she plans to speak at the next Lakeside City Council meeting — 7 p.m. on Aug. 12 — to air her concerns about the ordinance, which increases fines for nuisance abatements from $200 to $750. It also would allow city officials to enter properties that have ongoing nuisance issues by obtaining administrative search warrants from Coos County Circuit Court judges.
Parker said she opposes that part of the ordinance.
She added the ordinance’s language isn’t appropriate for the city. For example, a chief of police could enforce the ordinance, it states, and prosecution shall be filed with the municipal judge of the city.
Lakeside has no such officials.
Carleton said he wanted to give more teeth to the city’s existing nuisance abatement ordinance, which deals with issues such as tall grass — a fire hazard — or rat-infested properties that are considered a public health issue.
He said Lakeside recently has dealt with several egregious cases in which property owners didn’t comply with requests to clean up their property.
Under the new ordinance, if a property is found to be a nuisance by the council — following a community member’s complaint — the owner would be notified and given a number of days to fix the problem.
If an owner doesn’t obey, Carleton said he would submit an affidavit and get an administrative search warrant from a judge that would allow city officials or hired contractors to do the work themselves.
For property owners who refuse permission to enter or inspect the property, enforcement officials may seek an administrative inspection warrant.
Those who do not abate nuisances could pay up to a $750-per-day fine, depending on a judge’s discretion.
However, ‘we don’t want the fines,” he said.
‘We want them to take care of the problem, but we have to have some leverage.”
The ordinance would take effect Aug. 8, a month after it passed.
If it is repealed, Carleton said he’ll rework and present it at the council’s September meeting.
Since it was approved, several residents have put up ‘No Trespassing” signs outside their homes, including Roger Rolen.
He said he didn’t entirely understand the ordinance, but city staff shouldn’t come on his property and attempt to fine him for improving his property.
Reporter Jessica Musicar can be reached at 541-269-1222, ext. 240; or at jmusicar@theworldlink.com.
*** *** *** *** *** ***
PLEASE NOTE: This is not a criticism of Jessica Musicar’s writing. She is a World staff writer, and she has to write what the World’s publisher and editor Clark Walworth tells her to write. But, Fred! Oh my gawd, Fred! Where is your head? Have you ever tried writing children’s books?
Bob Fischer
Clark, I am compelled to challenge your condescending ‘viewpoint’ of Ms Lloyd-Rogers’ reporting. Just because your paper fails to observe and confirm a ‘pattern’ doesn’t disprove its existence or the validity of another journalist reporting on it. Further, your comments are even more ironic considering your paper would not have had this story at all if another journalist at another paper hadn’t broken the story two weeks earlier, causing the city counsel, Fred Carleton, to rethink the flagrant violation of the 4th amendment he crafted as a city ordinance. The real story is that a real journalist did their job and helped avert a public policy blunder. Your paper didn’t even give Coast Lake News a nod.
Wow, den, thanks for the history lesson. This is very informative and interesting to note who was a councilor at the time.
Yes, where was The World? Alas, most corporate owned newspapers are more and more acting as stenographers for local government. They regurgitate press releases as fact, talk to a couple of people sitting in the audience and then go home to bed.
It is left to astute citizens and independent journalists to do the work papers used to do.
For all you history buffs, Coos Bay tried a similar process in 1999, and right after that Nikki, began the Coos County clean up act for which one of the Commissioners made a false statement which cost him his job. In Jan. 2000 their was so much heat on the council that there was a public meeting at the Library in Coos Bay. Capacity crowd, standing room only. Grile, and the Police Chief, took the heat. There was not one city councilor there. But Nikki was.
Below are post of letters and info on the Coos Bay event:
LETTER ONE
Heads up Coos County residents. City council of Coos Bay Oregon has already reviewed Ordinance 288 at the December 9 meeting and tabled it at the December 21, 1999, City Council meeting where it was scheduled for Enactment. Now, a public meeting for discussion, is to be held at the Library, January 19 at 4 PM.
The Mayor, Joanne Verger, running for state representative, and Cindy Miller , running for Coos County Commissioner, have not made statements against the ordinance. Mary Hopkin, staff writer for The World tries to over simplify the ordinance with impressions that residents will have to find new places to live and the city can kick residents out of their homes for one year who have repeatedly had police come to their door.
What the ordinance is: Ordinance NO. 288, Chronic Disorderly Activity is real and personal property Seizure, when a closure order is issued and Forfeiture through the civil penalty levied by the court which can run up to $750.00 per day starting from preliminary notice, which could include 170 days or more. $127,000.00 penalty, plus court cost, City cost, and bond cost at assessed value, just to petition the court for relief from closure order. If the owner walked away from the property, the court could level judgement against the personal assets of the owner to recover penalty and cost above wholesale value of the property.
The crime does not fit the penalty. By the way, there does not have to be a crime, an arrest, or a conviction. Only a complaint and alleged violation of a City ordinance or state Statutes. That is an opinion of a neighbor, civil servant, police officer or bureaucrat. Civil Seizure attaches to objects, as violating a law.
Interesting, Vicki Jenkins, Blossom Gulch Principal, represented people who support the ordinance, as reported by The World. Does she live inside the ordinance boundary? Do any of the teachers?
The “special interest group” made up of parents and Blossom Gulch Elementary School teachers, used as consultants last October, the seizure experience of South Coast Interagency Narcotics Team, and convinced the Coos Bay City Council to sanction the expense in time, money to have the City Attorney prepare the Ordinance for approval at the December 7, 1999, City Council meeting.
Who benefits, the children? No. The coffers of government. The ordinance does not even come close to closing the house the special interest group was addressing.
FRIDAY UPDATE FROM THE COOS BAY WED SITE
At Tuesday’s City Council work session, staff and council members received a
draft proposal for a new City ordinance titled “Chronic Disorderly Property
Ordinance.” A Blossom Gulch School and Community Group appeared before the
council to speak about the proposal and its possible beneficial impact on
the quality of life in all of the City’s neighborhoods. Blossom Gulch
School Principal Vicki Jenkins was the spokesperson for the neighborhood
group. Coos Bay Police sergeants all reviewed the draft proposal and
Sgt.Darrell King represented their input. City Attorney Randall Tosh
effectively addressed the only issue the sergeant had as a concern.
The proposed ordinance would allow for civil penalties and remedies when an
enforcement officer receives a report alleging the occurrence of four
prohibited activities at or within 200 feet of residential property within
60 days. Some of the prohibited activities include loud, tumultuous,
disorderly and fighting behaviors, alcohol violations, criminal trespassing,
criminal mischief, assaults and discharge of weapons. All the offenses
listed in the proposal are behaviors police and neighbors associate with
drug houses, after (bar closing) hours drinking brawls in neighborhoods, and
troublesome locations that persist in ongoing, disruptive, threatening,
and/or violent actions.
Councilor Dan Spangler inquired about the fact that only residential
properties are affected by the proposed ordinance. He suggested that
commercial property be included and protected by the ordinance as well.
Councilor Kevin Stufflebean suggested that 60 days was too short a time
period to document the prohibited activities. He and Randall Tosh agreed
that 180 days may be more reasonable.
Copies of the draft proposal are available for review at the Police
Department’s reception area during normal business hours. Comments from
City residents are eagerly solicited on this matter. Although the Police
Department is not taking an administrative position on the ordinance
proposal until further information and discussion occurs. Citizen comments
are welcome in Captain Washburn’s office, Monday through Friday, 2:00 p.m. –
4:00 p.m., (541) 269-8914, extension 230.
LETTER 2. BOTH LETTER 1 AND 2 WERE SENT TO THE WORLD, DON’T REMEMBER IF THEY PUBLISHED BOTH.
Oops! They noticed. The civics lesson here is you better know what your representatives are up to. They tried to slip this one through in the busy holiday season and got caught. And, now supporters are doing damage control to avert political suicide.
The attention and fuss. The World Newspaper again fills it’s Editorial page with the good deeds of the Coos Bay City Council and how the citizens participated in the Great American Civic lesson.
Ordinance No. 288, AN ORDINANCE FOR THE PROTECTION OF RESIDENTIAL NEIGHBORHOODS FROM CHRONIC DISORDERLY ACTIVITY, PROVIDING FOR ABATEMENT THEREOF AND A PENALTY THEREFOR. Allowing seizure of property with inevitable forfeiture
Badly conceived as it was, and as costly to the tax payers it has been, this ordinance was presented in the dark of winter in the floury of the Christmas holiday season on December 7, 1999 (Pearl Harbor day). The city was prepared, the citizen support group was on stage.
Sounds good to me the councilors agreed, lets enact it into law at our next council meeting a few nights before St. Nick arrives, at their meeting on 21 of December 1999. Maybe no one will notice, it’s Christmas you know.
Where was The World during rehearsal? When in October a citizen group was organized. When the citizen group met with the South Coast Interagency Narcotics Team (SCINT). When the group requested the city to solve a problem.. When the City spent the money to draft the ordinance. Where were The World Reporters?
Was this an out growth of a Blossom Gulch School safety meeting, October 15, report? The Friday update prior to December 7, 1999 did not mention the citizen group, their meetings, their contact and meeting with SCINT, their contact with the city or council about a problem, their request for a solution, the cities response to the problem, the cities proposed solution to the problem .
Hey, I support the City, I pay the taxes, they spend the money.
Oops! They noticed.