In my column last week, I wrote about individual Gilroy citizens
getting personally involved in reporting blight in the community to
the proper city authorities. Now my purpose doing this was not to
create a
”
snitch-squad
”
for busybodies with nothing better to do, but rather for readers
to consider the end result of such an endeavor
– that is, being part of a community in which we all can take
pride to live in.
In my column last week, I wrote about individual Gilroy citizens getting personally involved in reporting blight in the community to the proper city authorities. Now my purpose doing this was not to create a “snitch-squad” for busybodies with nothing better to do, but rather for readers to consider the end result of such an endeavor – that is, being part of a community in which we all can take pride to live in.
Unfortunately, what I wrote bothered one reader so much that rather than responding to my column by email or letter, this person called the Red Phone hotline to voice their disagreement (Dispatch 8/18). Now since this nameless person (whom I’ll call “X”) has missed the point completely regarding what I wrote, I’ll answer them here in order to hopefully clear-up their confusion.
X: “I cannot believe that [Fennell’s] telling people they can’t park their cars, boats or RV’s in their driveways or in unpaved areas of their homes.”
Answer: I never said people can’t park their cars, boats or RV’s on those areas of their property. The context of what I wrote was for local residents to obey the blight ordinance laws when it comes to parking cars, boats or RV’s on their property, and to report violators. To arrive at any other conclusion is totally unfounded.
X: “That’s totally going against RV and boat owners and people who own more than one car. That’s just ridiculous.”
Answer: No, X, you are ridiculous because first of all, you show a lack of understanding about the Gilroy blight ordinance regarding cars, boat, and RV’s. Have you been reading anything at all about this blight issue in The Dispatch over the last year? Hello? Because you’re apparently ignorant on the subject, let me repeat for you what The Dispatch said about the blight ordinance back on 9/4/03: “Parking of vehicles: Bans parking, keeping or storing any boat or motor vehicle, including RVs, whether operable or inoperable, on any portion of the front yard of a property except on a paved area for more than 72 consecutive hours.”
Specifically, the ordinance bans parking any motor vehicle (including a boat or trailer) on any portion of an unpaved front yard. That’s the law, and not something I made up.
And even with vehicles parked on paved property, there is another issue about cars, boats, RV’s or trailers being dismantled, assembled, repaired, painted, or serviced in the front yard, turning the neighborhood view for neighbors and passing traffic into a work-in-process open-air repair shop, guaranteed to not help surrounding property values.
So once again, for you readers with common sense, if you see such activity taking place, call GPD officer Gary Muraoka at 846-0320 and report it.
He’ll ask you for the address, vehicle make, model, color (as appropriate) and the license number. His voice recording states that action will be handled on a “first-come, first-serve basis”, so don’t hold your breath for a fast clean-up. It could take weeks or longer.
X continues: “… then he (Fennell) talks about the portable basketball backboards. It’s very obvious that James does not have any children and that he doesn’t care about keeping them entertained and at home and off the streets.”
Answer: First of all, when my kids were growing up we had a portable basketball backboard in our backyard, not in the street or on the sidewalk.
And as far as me not caring about keeping children “entertained” and “off the streets”, X again totally misses my point – that portable basketball backboards located in front of a person’s home on the sidewalk or in the street, are illegally placed as a fixture on city property, not private property.
Apparently X is not aware that the city owns the sidewalk in front of their property, and is not clear about what belongs on the streets and what doesn’t. The issue is about safety and the possibility of a lawsuit filed against a homeowner by someone who, for whatever reason, falls over, or hits one of these things and sustains personal injury.
X ends their vendetta with: “It’s obvious that he (Fennell) has a problem with everyday life and living …”
Answer: No X, I don’t have a problem with everyday life and living. In fact I enjoy it so much, I shudder to see how many local people apparently do have a problem with it by not showing any personal concern about their contribution to blight here in town, while at the same time being unable or unwilling to put their brain in gear regarding common sense safety for their children.
So like the Red Phone reply said, “cool your jets caller. That’s why we call it the Opinion page.”
