Question 2: Name one Verona ordinance or regulation that should be eliminated and why.
Carrie Ford (Facebook, Twitter): As an attorney, I understand that ordinances are enacted in response to particular concerns or to achieve particular objectives. Merely eliminating an ordinance ignores the underlying issue it was meant to resolve; repeal without a compelling reason, such as the need to remedy a harm or concern caused by an ordinance, creates an unaddressed void. I believe it would be irresponsible to unilaterally advocate the elimination of an ordinance without community discussion and input from the relevant subject matter experts.
Nevertheless, upon examination of the code, I see several ordinances that should be reviewed and considered for updates through amendments. The council should focus its efforts on enhancing and expanding the code to meet the changing needs of our community. For instance, the Council is currently considering how to resolve an error in the ordinance intended to establish a one-way section of Personnette Avenue near Linn Drive (Vehicles and Traffic, Schedule VIII: One-Way Streets, §140-42). As it stands, the town attorney has advised that the current ordinance may not be enforceable as written. Coupled with the routine disregard for the one-way designation, the existing ordinance has created a dangerous situation for residents and drivers. Unfortunately, this situation is not easily fixed by simply repealing and passing another ordinance; the solution may require the involvement of traffic studies and consultation with engineers to determine whether the section of the street should be opened to two-way traffic, a traffic light should be added at Fairview and Personnette, and/or access to Linn Drive should be closed. To make such a decision, community discourse and evaluation of the traffic conditions are necessary.
Another example of an ordinance with an unintended impact is Parks Rules and Regulations, Rules and Regulations Enumerated, §100-1. This ordinance unintentionally harms kindergarten-age children and children with disabilities. Specifically, a plain reading of an existing ordinance prohibits a 6 year old boy from using the women’s restroom with his mom or female caregiver at public parks or recreation areas. According to the language of the ordinance, “…No person above the age of five (5) years shall use the restrooms and washrooms designated for the opposite sex. ” §100-1A(2). The ordinance doesn’t provide an exception for young children or those with special needs, who require assistance of a caregiver or parent in the restroom. Amending this rule would create a much more inclusive situation for our residents.
I can think of several other examples worthy of discussion. The ordinances governing business signs uses outdated terminology to describe permissible and prohibited signage, which creates ambiguity and thus causes tension among our business owners and the town’s efforts to enforce such codes. The ordinances setting forth and referring to the organization of our firefighters and rescue personnel reference almost exclusively “-men.” The exclusive reference to men fails to recognize the very meaningful and honorable contributions by both men and women to these vital services. We should also consider updating our ordinances to include the safe sharing of certain roadways with bicycles to ensure cyclists – adults and children – are encouraged to bike in and around town rather than causing further street congestion with cars.
The above are only a few examples of ordinances we could revisit with an eye to modernization and addressing the concerns of today’s community. And while it’s the Council’s responsibility to update these ordinances, I believe that it should be done by fully engaging the community in the conversation. I will advocate for complete and meaningful government transparency, as changes such as these affect the entire Verona community.
