Resident unhappy about possible changes to vehicle ordinance

In regards to the proposed change to Chapter 8.52 of the Moses Lake Municipal Code, "Residential Vehicle Storage," City Manager Joe Gavinski states, "the proposed amendment changes the enforcement methodology." Using the word methodology rather than process, practice or procedure has an ominously foreboding sound outside the word of law. Methodology may better be applied to philosophy, logic or theology not, people, homes and cars. In any terms, the proposed amendment will eliminate an essential part of the ordinance. Albeit intrusive, invasive and in all probability unconstitutional as it is, to remove the current notice of violation and order to correct or cease activity will do away with the earliest essential indication to a citizen that someone has complained against them to the city. It will not allow the individual that first fundamental opportunity to respond or comply outside of a courtroom. As disagreeable as it exists today, the notice of violation is a practice that more affably informs a citizen of a possible violation. The status quo is a far friendlier procedure than to "simply require the payment of a fine with every violation". The current notice of violation may also avert any possible or very probable enforcement mistake on the part of the City.

Perhaps Mr. Gavinski uses the word "methodology" rather than the words process or procedure because he does not want to draw attention to the very probable infringement upon the procedural due process rights of a citizen. The due process clause of the fourteenth amendment of the Constitution of the United States of America can be applied here as this proposed amendment to the ordinance affects a person's land and property. Of course, the procedural application of the clause is in regards that notice of violation. Removing that part of the enforcement procedure, the code will not provide an adequate notice as mandated by the civil due process provisions of the fourteenth amendment. Moses Lake City Council should make a very serious consideration of the risk of an erroneous deprivation of such rights through the procedures used, and the probable value, if any, that may accrue by such a change.

"Cumbersome and ineffective" are the words Mr. Gavinski says the city attorney has attached to this procedural process. I suggest it is more closely, the opposite. The current process of residential vehicle storage code enforcement is just manageable and if not effective, it is far fairer and more uniform than an initial, arbitrary ticket/fine. Perhaps the problem is not that the code enforcement procedure is cumbersome and ineffective. Maybe it's just not a moneymaker for the city coffers. By circumventing the notice, it might well be an ill-conceived income-producing endeavor.

That brings to light other issues relevant to civil due process including the impartiality of the person or panel making the final decision over the matter. If a citizen chooses to challenge the city action, the subjective fine, I question the unbiased nature of the municipal court in dealing with such matters. It has been my observation that the judge has very limited discretionary privilege as imposed by the city in similar matters, like dog fines. Be that as it may, I have always maintained the entire residential vehicle storage ordinance is piece meal, convoluted, confusing, poorly written and difficult to interpret.

Finally, the elimination of the notice of violation as used in respect to residential vehicle storage will not be applied fairly and uniformly. Why change this particular ordinance in deference to all other alleged violations possibly contained within the Moses Lake Municipal Code? I contend Mr. Gavinski will use this proposed change to further selectively target and discriminate against automobile collectors and car enthusiasts.

In conclusion, I urge the council to reject this proposed change to the residential vehicle storage ordinance and rather look to insure procedural safeguards to the citizens it represents. May I suggest that in the alternative, you look to the very noticeable flaws and city staff's inappropriate applications of Chapter 1.20 Administrative Code?