Dear Editor,
Your July 21 editorial “Nightmare Citations” was a good example of what happens when an author is indifferent to the issues of accuracy. The question of constitutionality was raised, regarding the issuing of administrative citations then the author backed away without explanation.
It was only a month ago, June 17, that the Dispatch had “Cheers: For the city council which gave… the police department an enforceable ordinance…” Then in another editorial, June 30, “An administrative citation can be imposed on property owners. This aids enforcement…” if an owner has allowed the use of illegal fireworks on his property gets caught and “… no one claims ownership…” then the owner must bear the responsibility. “We welcome the increased fines and hope more citations are issued …”
Now the editorial board takes an opposing stand alleging that the “city has taken a step too far in its efforts to control the illegal fireworks. Administrative citations aren’t the proper way to enforce the law.”
So what brought about this change? The only hint is a vague constitutional reference. Was the author unduly swayed by the allegations that the issuing of citations violates the Fourth, Fifth and Sixth amendments to the Bill of Rights, as Ms. Walker and Mr. Anderson’s columns claim?
Ms. Walker suggests that anyone who is issued a administrative citation will be denied their rights of due process of law, but does not say how.
Mr. Anderson followed Walkers lead adding the citation issue to his second column on freedoms lost. He writes “The Fourth Amendment right for millions of citizens to due process and freedom from seizures without a warrant.” The mixing of the two amendments was just sloppy. Assuming that the Fifth Amendment reference refers to the states responsibility to its citizens is wrong, that is the 14th Amendment. The Fifth is federal due process of law. This is a common mistake made by people who think of the Bill of Rights in terms of 10.
The use of administrative citations is not new, a search of the Internet will bare out that fact, nor is it some last minute thing the Gilroy City Council came up with, it has been “on the books” since June of 2004. If anyone wants to know more just go to the Gilroy City Codes, section 6a. 13-23 page 72.1-5 at the library.
Please, more responsible research and less conspiracy theories, although they are fun to play with.
Harold Williams, San Jose
Editor’s note: We appreciate Mr. Williams pointing out our inconsistency regarding this issue. We should have addressed the editorial board’s change of position in the editorial itself. Our apologies.
