Council turns thumbs down on abandoned, junk vehicle law

By BROOKS TAYLOR

Mt. Pleasant News

It?s back to square one for the Mt. Pleasant City Council and, in particular, the ordinance committee.

In its regular meeting Wednesday night, the council unanimously thumbed down the second reading of a proposed ordinance dealing with abandoned and junk vehicles. The action means that the proposed ordinance is ?dead? and a new proposal will have to be drafted by the committee.

?Now, we?re back to the drawing board, right or wrong,? Mayor Steve Brimhall surmised following about a half hour of debate by the council and several citizens on the ordinance.

Major sticking points were the time element to rectify the ordinance and the definition of a junk vehicle.

The proposed ordinance allowed residents just 72 hours for storage or placement on public or private property any vehicle or vehicle part which, under other sections of the ordinance, would be defined as an abandoned or junk vehicle.

However, city officials admitted that the legal process would take well over 72 hours before action is taken.

?Sometimes, it is possible to get parts in three days. Sometimes you have to look all over the country for parts,? Councilman Stan Curtis said. ?I think the time is too short and the definitions too stringent.?

?I think if someone can prove they are making reasonable progress and there is no danger to neighbors, they should be allowed more time,? added Councilman Tim Gray.

Councilman Steve Engberg, who along with Councilman Terry McWilliams and Councilwoman Deb Savage, comprise the council ordinance committee, said the ordinance is not meant to create a Gestapo.

?It?s not like we are gong to run around and look for things,? he began. ?We have people dragging in trailers that are just junk. We are looking at things that have been there for six months. Just because it (ordinance) has teeth, doesn?t mean we will bite.

?We are not writing ordinance for people who do things right,? Engberg added.

An inoperable vehicle as defined in the ordinance is:

? Any vehicle that does not display current registration;

? Any vehicle with a broken or missing windshield, missing window, headlight or any other missing glass;

? Any vehicle that is the habitat of rats, mice, snakes or any other vermin or insects;

? Any vehicle that lacks an engine, one or more wheels, or other parts that render the vehicle inoperable, such as a truck without an engine or a trailer missing a wheel;

? Any vehicle that does not have all tires inflated;

? Any vehicle that is not capable of moving in both forward and reverse gears.

The ordinance also does not allow a vehicle to be parked on public or private property for any time exceeding 72 hours without being moved.

Curtis noted that he sees vehicles being driven daily that would be classified a nuisance under the ordinance. ?You see cars running on the street with broken glass and missing body parts.?

Mt. Pleasant resident Ed Kropa noted that he took Amtrak to the East Coast over Christmas vacation and that his vehicle (under the ordinance) could have been considered an abandoned or junk vehicle because it was parked at the depot for longer than 72 hours without moving. ?I would have been in violation of the ordinance,? Kropa noted.

Councilman Matt Crull suggested the ordinance be reworked. ?We need some better language,? he noted. ?This kicks out any backyard mechanic or classic car collector?I think we need a better definition of some things before we pass it.?

Engberg re-emphasized that the intent of the ordinance is not to ?police? the city. ?Just because it (ordinance) has teeth doesn?t mean we will bite.?

Crull said that might be true, but quickly added that this council would not be the only group enforcing it. ?We may not bite, but how about the council in six years??

Brimhall said the public has been well-informed about the ordinance. ?I love it that the press had it in the newspaper (Mt. Pleasant News) so people could talk about it and the radio station talked about it.?

The purpose of the ordinance was to foster public discussion, City Administrator Brent Schleisman said. ?We have been talking about this since September and we wanted conversation on it.?

Savage said she has not heard much public comment on the proposal since it surfaced during the council?s Dec. 27, 2012, meeting. ?We have had only one letter against it and comments tonight, but otherwise (we) haven?t heard much.?

?These ordinance are written for people who don?t like what you are doing. Do you want to see a car on blocks for two weeks?? asked Engberg.

No timetable was set for the writing or another proposed ordinance on the topic.