Thursday, May 3, 2007
I Want My Car Back!!!
I find it amazing that folks that should know would gloss over a litle ole constitutional matter like illegal search and seizure. Using the Town Talk figures of roughly $850.00 in towing and storage fees and extrapolating that to the stated 500 cars - appears to be an exposure amount of $425,000.00 for that alone. Let's see, now we have attorney fees, damage to property, defense of employees for criminal trespass, etc. Hmmmmmmmmmmmm. Maybe someone did not think this through? What say you, Mr. Citizen?
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
8 comments:
It should be becoming increasingl clearer as to the quality of the legal advice/opinion rendered by the numerous city Assistant Attorneys. The present City Attorney may be a new kid on the block and not responsible for the Council's action on this particular ordnance but the Assistants are a bridge from the old administration to the new.
It should have been apparent to anyone that this ordnance would be and is violation of numerous individual rights yet the ordnance passed. It passed because the City Council and the City's Attorneys feel they are above the law of the land and can do as they desire.
Mayor Roy, IMHO, has a tough, expensive task ahead to correct the numerous problemns created by inept Attorneys, Councilmen and City employees. It will be interesting to see how such situations as the Alexandria Housing Aouthority, Myron Lawson's ethical conduct and other matters wind up.
Don't spend any surplus yet.
How could anyone think that an appelete committee consisting of the person responsible for having the vehicles hauled and an Assistant City Attorney. Ms. Sylvester, could be an unbiased committee for apeal. Shows the quality of legal advice rendered.
The car ordinance has many legal problems, but its appellate process within the City is not one of them. In Social Security cases, its own employees hear the appeals. Same goes for most administrative agencies, such as D.E.Q., Dept. of Motor Vehicles, School Boards, and etc... I do think that the administrative procedures act, and due process, requires the ordinance to allow appeals to a court however, after the administrative decision.
Unless a vehicle in someone's yard creates a nuisance (i.e. present a health problem to neighbors), or it violates a subdivision's recorded land use retrictions, it is none of the government's dam business what one decides to place on his or her own property. If I want to put Christmas decorations, Mardi Gras flags, high school team booster signed, pink flamingos or even a junked car on my property that is my right. Other's do not have, or should not have, the right to decide how one utilizes his own property. That was a fundamental Constitutional right, until we started allowing government to snip away at it.
As the old saying goes, one man's trash is another man's treasure. Why should the City Council be allowed to decide which it is? And , as usual, the poor or most often hit by this ordinance. Many people have to save up their money to get their cars repaired. If they cancell their insurance during that time, and remove the plates as required by law, the City then trespasses on their property, hauls off their car, and hits them with an expensive towing bill, which has the effect of taking their property without Due Process of law. I though government was supposed to make our lives better, not worsen its quality.
Wow Spanky! Looks like you riled up the Waco crowd. I think the ordinance needs some tuning but should work just fine.
"What say you, Mr. Citizen?" I love it. Ask for input, folks give reasonable thoughts and some puke - Anon 1:49 - (probably a city employee involved in administering the policy) has to insult everyone by implying we are not mentally stable. Sounds like the policy of the city's legal department, demean, defame, insult and accuse.
"I think the ordinance needs some tuning but should work just fine." In order to do something the person must be equipped with the ability to do.
Greggy the magnificent posted the following warning on his blog:
"If anyone, including an employee of the City of Alexandria, even its
police department, enters upon my property without a warrant from a
court, exigent circumstances, or my permission, my property will be
protected to the full extent of the law, including any necessary
reasonable force under the circumstances.
Your attempts to pass unconstitutional ordinances affecting my
property rights will not be tolerated or abided by."
I think that it is an announcement of intention to use lethal force against law enforcement officers and meter readers and can be considered when approaching Greg's property. I suggest that you wear a kevlar vest and carry a ham sandwich.
This ordnance will not stand the appeals process, as it shouldn't.
Post a Comment