Academy of Local Politics

I've been sitting on this for a few days trying to figure out what I really think.

After a few days I think this bit of news is just as disgusting as it was when I first read it...

Texting-while-walking could become a crime in Illinois: Several officials, including the Illinois secretary of state, have voiced approval for a bill that would outlaw the practice.

Illegal to walk and text message at the same time?

Really...what's next?

I mean it...what could be next?

What could possibly be next?

Walking and chewing gum?

Local municipal governments have the authority to regulate liquor licenses. On and Off sale. As they should. Local "standards" differ on the sale of liquor.

With that being said...within the municipal boundaries those laws should be uniformly enforced. What's good for one side of the city is good for the other.

Unless, of course, you happen to live in Madison, WI.

It's almost summer. Baseball is full swing. Road construction is everywhere.       And somewhere...someone is letting their grass grow. They aren't mowing their lawn. I guess it must be especially true in Canton, OH.

For residents tired of that overgrown lot that resembles a minijungle next door, the city wants to help by trying to put high-grass violators behind bars.

City Council wants to beef up its existing high-grass and weeds law by making a second offense a fourth-degree misdemeanor, which is punishable by a fine of up to $250 and up to 30 days in jail.

Go to jail for a second offense high grass ordinance? Wow!

Service Director Thomas Bernabei initiated a review of the existing law. The city is responsible for mowing about 2,400 lots, he estimated at a committee meeting Monday night. Mowing the properties costs the city money, labor and time.

Responsible for mowing about 2400 lots? Responsible?

The city spends $225,000 to $250,000 a year on cutting overgrown lots, estimated Councilman Greg Hawk, D-1, who advocated taking a "hard line" on the issue.

I don't get it. Obviously, I don't understand Ohio laws.

I'm use to the idea of placing the city cost of cutting long grass on the property tax bill as a final collection step. If the tax bill isn't paid, the owner could lose the house. I have never heard of it going that far.

But...

 "Whadda ya in for?"

"I didn't cut my lawn."

There has to be a better way.

Pet Control.

Those two words can make even the most hardened local official tremble. The following comes from the Cumberland (MD) Times-News, but it could come from any newspaper in any town.

...the prosecuting attorney is reviewing a copy of the ordinance, which states that "habitually barking, howling or yelping dogs are a public nuisance."

The ordinance says that when a dog's barking occurs continually and is audible beyond the property line where it is located for beyond 30 minutes, and is attested to by at least two people not in the same household, the dog owner is in violation of the ordinance. The barking can also be of shorter duration and occurring on more than five occasions within a five-day period, but still must be attested to by the two people.

OK, sure. That sounds reasonable to me.

The ordinance calls for investigation of complaints and enforcement to be handled by the animal control officer and his deputies.

They have an animal control officer AND deputies. That is a luxury many communities don't have.

So, they will have a new ordinance and officials to enforce it.                        They're set...Not quite.

 ...a workshop is scheduled for next month and they will look more carefully at kennels and rescue organizations and consider all opinions related to those issues.

and also

...cats are a problem...

Remember, pet control is never ending.

There is no such thing as a good solution to barking and/or roaming dogs or feral cats. There are solutions, but none of them are good.

Job security could be defined as being an attorney for Wal-Mart. The distance some people will go to stop a Wal-Mart is close to infinity. Let's visit Tumwater, WA.

Tumwater Livable Community and the United Food and Commercial Workers have been attempting to stop the construction of a Wal-Mart for over three years.

It looks like this battle is finally over and Wal-Mart wins again.

Opponents claim the environmental impact statement for the project "fails to protect the right of the citizens of Tumwater to a safe and healthful environment." The hearing examiner rejected that argument along with appeals of various land-use permits issued by the city.

Just how did those Wal-Mart attorneys pull this rabbit out of the hat?

The truth is the property is properly zoned and Wal-Mart's application was within the legal limits when it was filed at City Hall. Those were huge obstacles for opponents to beat down.

Further appeals likely would simply be delaying the inevitable. Wal-Mart has the law on its side in its quest to build a store in Tumwater.

Those pesky laws.

They quite often seem to be "huge obstacles" to Wal-Mart critics.