Sac City Council, Planning and Zoning Board apparently to start punishing poor people Part II

SAC CITY, IOWA – AUGUST 23, 2010

Continued from yesterday

Ms. Hoffard and Mr. Frohardt went back and forth for a little bit about what her neighbors may think. After pointing out that there are five other houses on the block that are empty, Mr. Frohardt dropped that line of reasoning and asked her to speculate about what random people driving by my think.

Following is that convesartion. At the end Mr. Ledford broke into this conversation and makes a point about how the law in question could be applied correctly :


He goes on to make the following point:


As a reader, keep this in mind. The Sac City Council is to decide whether Ms. Hoffard’s house is abandoned. This point is made over and over at various points during the two hearings.

When asked, THE PERSON IN CHARGE OF SERVING THE ORDER ducks all responsibility and cops a “I was just doing what I was told” defense. Check out his weasely moves in the following video.


So at this point, the mayor asks Mr. Ledford to again talk about the charge. Again he says out loud that exact same thing that every single city councilperson has in front of them in writing:

“You do not have an abandonment issue.”

Following is Nick Frohardt reading the portion of the ordinance under which Ms. Hoffard is charged.

As you heard for yourself, according to the acknowledged problems with Ms. Hoffard’s property, it does not fall under the category of what the law defines as “Abandoned.”

When the hearing reached this point, Councilperson Bill Brenny, Mayor Barb Powell, and Councilperson nick Frohardt all gave speeches about their desire to work with the Planning and Zoning board to start taking out problem properties around town. Heck, even Jim Johnston mumbled a few perfunctory words to that effect.

Here’s Planning and Zoning board member and ex city councilperson, Mayo making sure that everyone gathered understand that none of this is his fault. I was actually at the meeting in which the directive to issue these notices happened, and there were zero COGXII representatives there making them incorrectly charge this citizen. Just saying:

…so it’s the Region XII Council of Government’s (who wasn’t there) fault that the Sac City Planning and Zoning board incompetently charged Ms. Hoffard with the wrong thing! (It’s all so clear now.)

So here we go, the council has heard Mr. Ledford say over and over again that it is the city attorney’s position that Ms. Hoffard’s property is not abandoned. They have heard in at least three separate ways that the thing that is wrong with Ms. Hoffard’s property can be dealth with under other provisions of the law, but that it is specifically not an abandoned property.

Here are the final arguments and the vote.
0002q
Note that just seconds before the vote it is pointed out to the council in plain English that if the abandonment order is not abated, then the city might have to spend money to litigate. Because it is unlikely that the city can get a judgment for abandonment, it will be money wasted. It was also made very clear that as soon as the business office opens the next day, the property could be charged with any number of valid charges. The Mayor herself even directs the council to single out the word abandonment to decide if that is the specific charge for which this property owner is guilty. In the last very few seconds before the vote, Mr. Frohardt even confirms with Ms. Hoffard that the property is still capable of getting utility service.

Jim Frederick makes the motion to absolve Ms. Hoffard of the charge. Before seconding the motion Bill Brenny again asks for clarification about what they are voting. Mr. Ledford again points out that they are going to decide whether the property is abandoned. Bill Brenny again asks for clarification about what the city attorney’s opinion about the topic is. Mr. Ledford again reiterates that it is the city attorney’s opinion that the property is not abandoned because it is being maintained. Bill Brenny seconds the motion to absolve Ms. Hoffard of the charge of abandonment.

Nick Frohardt votes no, do not absolve the charge.
Jim Johnston votes no, do not absolve the charge.
Bill Brenny votes yes, do absolve the charge.
Jim Frederick votes yes, do absolve the charge.

Because Gary Hansen had something more important to do, the vote tied 2-2 which means that the motion to drop the charge failed.

I asked the city administrator after the meeting just what the this means, and he confirmed my suspicions; the charge stands, but could be easily defeated in court.

All because a couple of council people needed to make an example…

All because the members of the Planning and Zoning Board seem to desperately need to throw their weight around…

All because, Ms. Hoffard is basically a person that is in the self professed position of living paycheck to paycheck and can’t affor to fight back…

…she now has to figure out how to un-abandon a property that is not abandoned.

Sac City Council, Planning and Zoning Board apparently to start punishing poor people: Part I
Sac City Council, Planning and Zoning Board apparently to start punishing poor people: Part II



Copyright (c)2007-2010 Curtis Bloes All Rights Reserved