Tuesday, June 15, 2010

A Few Council Notes

Monday's City Council meeting started half an hour late and then went on for four and a half hours, producing more subject matter than this writer can do justice to at this hour.

Mark Spivey and I stayed on to the end, to see what the council would do with a proposed $5.5 million bond ordinance to purchase the YWCA. But the administration withdrew the ordinance without any explanation of why the city would consider such a purchase. It remains a mystery, unless Mark was able to pry out some more information from the administration after I left.

The baseball league controversy reared its head again, as speakers took half an hour to bemoan the contention between a city-run league and one operated by volunteers. The speakers were all in support of the Recreation Division program and targeted Councilman Adrian Mapp for previously suggesting the way to end the controversy was to revoke funding for the city program and privatize it.

Mapp had responded by saying the ballfields were for all kids, and that anytime an employee creates an atmosphere where kids can't play, the governing body must do something about it. Supporters of the volunteer Queen City Baseball League recently alleged they were barred from fields and otherwise inconvenienced. At the end of the evening Monday, the league's executive director, Karen Glencamp-Daniel, said problems are ongoing. Click here for a Plaintalker piece on the controversy.

A discussion item related to the proposed "short sale" exemption from Certificate of Compliance rules led to Councilman Rashid Burney calling for repeal of the entire Certificate of Compliance ordinance, which led to an impassioned response from Chief Code Enforcement Officer Oscar Turk on the need for the ordinance. More on this later.

That's about all I can cover right now at 3:35 a.m. (the time stamp may not be correct). I will have to continue writing in a few hours.

--Bernice

2 comments:

  1. Oscar Turk should be so passionate about inspecting homes that are rrun down, or citing citizens for not mowing the lawns. There are tons of towns and states that do not have C of C. They also have old homes. The difference is that they have people who enforce ordinances.

    ReplyDelete
  2. I believe that repealing the city's C of C rules would be a huge mistake, and I would lobby the council to not even consider it. The fact that Oscar has been able to streamline the process to make it work more effectively for home sellers and buyers should be applauded. To leave the process of home inspection to (possibly) rapacious, self-serving commercial home inspectors who may not have anyone's best interests at heart would leave homeowners with no protection, in terms of safe habitation (safe railings, radon detection, mold, trip hazards, water heaters, HVAC, etc.), which is part of what the C of C is supposed to ensure. We have seen countless examples of homeowners (especially seniors) beign taken advantage of by shady inspectors. I have been through several home inspections over the years, hiring home inspectors when I was seriously considering a new house and also having the house I was living in inspected by commercial inspectors on behalf of prospective buyers. They do not catch everything, and the contracts that are signed with inspection companies generally absolve them of any responsibility for errors and omissions--that is why the city needs to stay involved and protect us. I am not saying that home inspection companies are bad, because I know several individuals who work for and/or run successful companies (and they have excellent reputations), but we need effective checks and balances. I agree with you, Bernice, that Oscar's response was impassioned. He is absolutely right that the C of C is still necessary for the protection of all Plainfield residents, and if anyone would know, Oscar would, as he and his staff are on the "front lines" with this.

    Rebecca

    ReplyDelete