The Observation Deck

Jim O'Bryan wrote:

Peter Grossetti wrote:"Joan Callahan 1072 Parkside stated that she lives next door to someone who has frequent sales. She believes that it is driving down her property value as no one would want to live next door to the constant sales.

Belief or fact?

Peter

Of course this is the sale the good mayor drives by whenever he heads to Clifton Club or West.

It is a problem I am sure for the entire neighborhood.

My point has been since day one, we are writing laws because of this guy?? Really the entire
city goes to more restrictions because city hall cannot figure out how to deal with one person.

.

Jim,

The global issue underlying this discussion is “laws in the books” versus “laws in action.”

The City of Lakewood already has “laws in the books” dealing with constant garage/yard sales. These are the same laws that were in the books when both Michael P. Summers and Kevin M. Butler served side-by-side on City Council.

What the City of Lakewood is currently lacking are “laws in action.”

While admittedly anecdotal, I have a personal example of “laws in the books” working together with “laws in action.” Our neighborhood had an individual who ran ongoing garage/yard sales during the spring, summer, fall, and, sometimes, winter. After many complaints to City Hall and the intervention of At-Large Lakewood City Councilwoman Nickie Antonio, the FitzGerald Administration was able to apply the laws already in the books to shut this individual’s constant garage/yard sales down. There has not been a problem since the current laws were enforced – i.e., laws in action.

I do not know why the Summers Administration cannot enforce the current “laws in the books.”

I do know that the FitzGerald Administration was able to put the same “laws in action.”

Matt

Peter Grossetti wrote:My "belief vs. fact" comment merely addresses the emerging and prevailing tone of the conversation in this thread (and plenty of others on The Deck lately).

I think the LO ratio is currently at:

80% belief

20% fact

Hello, Matt and all.

I sent the following email back to you just a few minutes ago, Matt. I thought I would share it hear as a start in responsing to other posts on this thread. Your original questions are in BOLD.


Hello, Matt.

Thanks, as always, for your email and input. It is certainly welcomed. I also saw a number of posts on the Observer which I hope to respond to very soon. (Perhaps I'll copy and paste this email reply to you as a start.)

While sincerely requesting feedback on this issue, I knew not everyone would agree on a possible remedy or even that this matter was in need of attention at all. We're simply not all going to agree and that's okay.

Know that I am attempting to schedule a third Housing Committee hearing for 7:00 p.m., Monday, July 23, to further discuss this proposed ordinance. By all means, feel free to provide a written statement for the record.

1. What "facts" exist to support the position that specific neighborhoods need protected from garage/yard sale? What are those neighborhoods?
Regarding these specific questions, the administration has stated for the record on at least three occasions that there are a handful of homeowners who are operating prepetual yard/garage sales for several months of the year which is placing stress and strain on neighborhoods. The neighbors are just asking for a bit of relief and not an overall ban. Granted, the administration has not provided nor have I requested a specific list of addresses. I have, although, learned about some prepetual sales and visited them myself to confirm. While it may have been done by others in the past, I am hesitant about including targeted owners/operators and addresses on the record.

2. What "facts" exist to support the position that four garage sales in the few weeks of the summer season are too many?

Currently, there is no regulation as to the number of sales and duration each can last. The proposed ordinance suggests allowing two garage sales for up to two consecutive days each. The Housing Committee has discussed allowing up to four or possibly six garage sales in one calendar year each being allowed to operate for no more than four consecutive days. Personally, I do not believe there are any ultimate facts to support whether four garage sales during the summer season are too many. However, since the administration brought forward the proposed ordinance and the Housing Committee has been deliberating I have received an overwhelming number of calls and emails in support of a limit in the range of 4-6 and a four day duration.

3. What "facts" exist to support the position that there are those who want to run a borderline business? And, by the way, what is a borderline business?
Again, I know of some prepetual sales and understand others exist as well. Now, are these owners/operators wishing to run a "borderline business," "de facto flea market" or whatever the term? I can't read minds but I believe they are just trying to sell stuff but don't understand the wear and tear prepetual sales are placing on their neighbors and neighborhood.

4. What "facts" exist to support the position that people could get the garage/yard sale word out by Twitter, Facebook, and Craigslist rather than posting signs?
It was suggested during the latest hearing that these social sites and Craigslist could possibly be used to promote sales in place of signs. I cannot respond to your request for facts on this point as I did not bring up the idea.

5. City Hall has stated that a very large number of Lakewood residents do not have access to computers and/or the Internet, at all. I believe I have heard City Hall say that up to 70% of Lakewood residents do not have access to computers and/or the Internet but, because I do not know the exact number, please share the "facts" as to how many Lakewood Citizens have access to computers and the Internet.

I think this is an interesting topic but I do not recall this statement being made at either of the Housing Committee hearings so cannot respond.

6. What plan does City Hall have to make politicians running for office "get the word out by tweeting, Facebook and Craigslist rather than posting signs and creating an eyesore?"
I think this question may be linked to question 4 and, again, I do not have an answer.

Matt, I know it's next to impossible to detect tone and attitude in email responses unless you really know the person who is writing. While you and I have only met two or three times, I hope you take my response as sincere and appreciative of your request for answers.

Yours in service,
David W. Anderson
Councilman, Ward 1
216-789-6463

In rsponse to your post this morning, Law Director Butler has testified before the committee that there are no laws/codes that cover prepetual or "nuisance" garage sales. Nuisance codes cover animal waste, odors, lighting, tall weeds and grass but not garage sales. In fact, all current garage sales can be shut down under current zoning code. Personally, I would rather have one complete set of rules that (1) promote successful and legal sales and (2) provide a tool to the city rather than random bans on certain sale operators.

David Anderson wrote:In rsponse to your post this morning, Law Director Butler has testified before the committee that there are no laws/codes that cover prepetual or "nuisance" garage sales. Nuisance codes cover animal waste, odors, lighting, tall weeds and grass but not garage sales. In fact, all current garage sales can be shut down under current zoning code. [Emphasis added.]

David,

So, it looks like there are "laws in the books" to shut down current rogue garage/yard sales.

And we have seen those “laws in action” in the past.

Did Law Director Kevin M. Butler testify as to why those laws were not put into action to address the concerns raised by the three residents seeking relief from the Administration?

Matt

Mike Zannoni wrote:

Matthew John Markling wrote: By the way, I am not surprised that At-Large Lakewood City Councilman Brian E. Powers responded to your email. Brian is very responsive.

On 7/2, I sent emails to my own councilperson, the at-large councilpersons, the chairperson and cc'd the Law Director.

I received responsive email replies from: Brian Powers (7/2), David Anderson (7/6), Ryan Nowlin (7/9), and was very pleased (and maybe surprised) about it. I know everybody is busy, so they were nice to to get.

Mike,

As always, At-Large Lakewood City Councilman Brian E. Powers responded to my email immediately.

At-Large Lakewood City Councilman Ryan Nowlin, Ward 2 Lakewood City Councilman Thomas Bullock, and Ward 1 Lakewood City Councilman David W. Anderson also responded within 24 hours or less.

They are all very busy. And I appreciate them taking the time to respond to me.

Thank you, Brian, Ryan, Tom, and David.

Matt

Perhaps the existing Zoning Code covering such sales might be modified/strengthened/more defined in order to address what has been previously agreed upon to be the crux of this entire issue ... stopping a few rogue wannabe fleamarkets; rather than burden The Citizenry with more restrictions?

Or was the genesis of this issue, in reality, property value?

Matthew John Markling wrote:

David Anderson wrote: In fact, all current garage sales can be shut down under current zoning code. [Emphasis added.]

David,

So, it looks like there are "laws in the books" to shut down current rogue garage/yard sales.

And we have seen those “laws in action” in the past.

Did Law Director Kevin M. Butler testify as to why those laws were not put into action to address the concerns raised by the three residents seeking relief from the Administration?

I wouldn't presume to speak for Mr. Butler, or anyone with a legal understanding of the situation, but it seems likely that past uses of the current code were less than absolutely proper. One man's "rogue" is another man's "right", and the mood of the day and who's making the call shouldn't then dictate when the authorities show up.

If the City has in the past selectively used (as it's "tool"), say, current zoning laws, to shut down nuisance garage-salers, it might some day soon be on the losing end of a law suit from someone who feels they are being unfairly picked on, that to their reading of the current laws, they are in fact within their legal right, especially if they are only doing something that others freely do, maybe only different by degree, but not in principle. Fair and uniform application of a past-used "tool" could then lead to no one in Lakewood being able to have a garage sale at all.

I REALLY DISLIKE the blithe way we speak of a legal "tool", because it suggests something facile, underhanded, unfair, discriminatory, etc., to me anyway. I would, though, like there to be a relatively unambiguous set of regulations somewhere between everybody-do-whatever-the-hell-you-want and everyone-tow-the-line-because-some-people-have-no-judgment that falls in most people's comfort zone. And then it should be uniformly enforced, no sense of having to get out a "tool" when needed, probably based on neighbor complaints only, as any other way to enforce would be impracticable and expensive.

As Mr. Anderson reveals, it seems that many other feel as I do, that 4 - 6 per year, with a four-day duration each, is about right. It seems from her comments in this thread that if the regulation got passed that way, Kate might find that too liberal (as many as 24 days per year?!), and the anecdotal Mr. 12-Bicycle might find that repressive (only 24 days per year?!), but it's to be expected that there will be those on both ends not entirely happy, and that's democracy in action. If that weren't the case, the line would probably have been drawn wrong.

I guess I'm implicitly in agreement about an actual need for regulation, maybe in contrast to a few people on this thread, as I can see the writing on the wall: more and more people in this economy will be tempted to have a semi-permanent flea market on their front lawn, and at this point at least, I'd like not to see that here.

I can't back that up "factually", with any "numbers", but I see enough of it to have a sense of it. Last summer, on Victoria, I was reminded of what I saw in Los Angeles in this respect, thinking of one house in particular, two young people, too many days (way more than 24), and oblivious to any sense of it being a nuisance to the neighborhood. Did I say anything to them? In this case, No; dude looked like he might kick my ass. I'd rather have the City tell them the law, and it should be a fair one enforced uniformly. (Not a tool to get rid of the hillbillies.)

Peter Grossetti wrote:Perhaps the existing Zoning Code covering such sales might be modified/strengthened/more defined in order to address what has been previously agreed upon to be the crux of this entire issue ... stopping a few rogue wannabe fleamarkets; rather than burden The Citizenry with more restrictions?

Sure, why not. Not sure that anything truly effective would amount to anything different than a separate regulation limiting garage sales, but that's for the legal minds.

Interesting information on how Canada regulates garage sales. If the link doesn't work, the gist is that you have to insure that everything you sell works, meets appropriate codes, and has instructions.

http://www.theglobeandmail.com/commenta ... n=96324977

Good God, people. The modern era of internet viciousness is amazing. Personal attacks over garage sales? In a world of both natural disaster and the age old sins of corruption, greed, genocide, covert violence and hatred -aided by frightening new technologies and we have personal attacks over garage sales? I really think the internet lifts a person's inhibitions in just the same way being behind the wheel of an automobile makes a person think no can see them picking their nose.

------

So on to the garage sales. Whether the sales are regulated under existing ordinance is irrelevant since no one seems to be able to nail that down with any certainty. Obscure regulations serve no one.

So how about a new middle of the road ordinance that supersedes any older ones? One that allows:

- Three sales per year per structure;
- Four days each (typically Thursday thru a Sunday giveaway/cleanup/sign gathering day);
- Signs must exhibit a visible address. This way unaddressed sale signs can be removed immediately by either public works or aggravated neighbors, and addressed signs left up after the sale can be traced right back to the "wrongful" owners. Now, I don't know who is going to spend time counting the number of addressed sale signs, so setting a limit seems problematic. Perhaps a large number, say 20 could be chosen, but there is a risk of it seeming too arbitrary.
- Any and all signs must be removed by the end of the sale time. Perhaps a small, non-confiscatory fine could be set, along the lines of the fine for an expired parking meter. [Relying on Twitter or FB to advertise just seems preemptively punitive to me. We just want the signs down after the sale. There's also no need to financially crucify anyone over a sale sign. My impression is that very few innocent people are tragically struck down in the prime of life by expired garage sale signs, so some perspective here would be nice. But I snarkily digress.]

IMHO, this sets a nice compromise that will not detrimentally affect the average resident, but will target those with on-going sales and those who irresponsibly blanket the city with signs and then abandon them. It offers gentle control over nuisances without the mindless application of over-the-top draconian penalties for minor infractions (a deterrent, they say) that are so popular with The Law these days. And it leaves intact the family fun that a normal garage sale event can bring. Honestly, how does unnecessarily spreading a cloud of fear and bitterness over the average family wanting an occasional garage sale serve the quality of life in the community?

Just my $2 (that's 2 cents depreciated since the ancient era of colloquialisms).

-T

Terry Tekushan wrote:Just my $2 (that's 2 cents depreciated since the ancient era of colloquialisms).
-T

Terry

How is the man driving the other oddest car in Lakewood? (any of yours)

I would say, why are we wasting time on this when there are laws on the books already
not being enforced and used. Why should council waste one more second on this. There is
very little doubt that City Hall has neither the time nor human power to enforce the new
laws any more than the old ones.

Less laws, less restrictions on residents would be a good thing.

My 2 cents, which is worth less if it is in new pennies, worth a little more with real copper
pennies, and a hell of a lot more if they are 1909 VDB pennies.


.

Terry Tekushan wrote:Good God, people. The modern era of internet viciousness is amazing. Personal attacks over garage sales? In a world of both natural disaster and the age old sins of corruption, greed, genocide, covert violence and hatred -aided by frightening new technologies and we have personal attacks over garage sales? I really think the internet lifts a person's inhibitions in just the same way being behind the wheel of an automobile makes a person think no can see them picking their nose.

------

So on to the garage sales. Whether the sales are regulated under existing ordinance is irrelevant since no one seems to be able to nail that down with any certainty. Obscure regulations serve no one.

So how about a new middle of the road ordinance that supersedes any older ones? One that allows:

- Three sales per year per structure;
- Four days each (typically Thursday thru a Sunday giveaway/cleanup/sign gathering day);
- Signs must exhibit a visible address. This way unaddressed sale signs can be removed immediately by either public works or aggravated neighbors, and addressed signs left up after the sale can be traced right back to the "wrongful" owners. Now, I don't know who is going to spend time counting the number of addressed sale signs, so setting a limit seems problematic. Perhaps a large number, say 20 could be chosen, but there is a risk of it seeming too arbitrary.
- Any and all signs must be removed by the end of the sale time. Perhaps a small, non-confiscatory fine could be set, along the lines of the fine for an expired parking meter. [Relying on Twitter or FB to advertise just seems preemptively punitive to me. We just want the signs down after the sale. There's also no need to financially crucify anyone over a sale sign. My impression is that very few innocent people are tragically struck down in the prime of life by expired garage sale signs, so some perspective here would be nice. But I snarkily digress.]

IMHO, this sets a nice compromise that will not detrimentally affect the average resident, but will target those with on-going sales and those who irresponsibly blanket the city with signs and then abandon them. It offers gentle control over nuisances without the mindless application of over-the-top draconian penalties for minor infractions (a deterrent, they say) that are so popular with The Law these days. And it leaves intact the family fun that a normal garage sale event can bring. Honestly, how does unnecessarily spreading a cloud of fear and bitterness over the average family wanting an occasional garage sale serve the quality of life in the community?

Just my $2 (that's 2 cents depreciated since the ancient era of colloquialisms).

-T

Heh, great points, good ideas. Compromise is excellent but you won't find it too often here, of course the more people like you participating the better it will get.

J Hrlec wrote:

Peter Grossetti wrote:My "belief vs. fact" comment merely addresses the emerging and prevailing tone of the conversation in this thread (and plenty of others on The Deck lately).

I think the LO ratio is currently at:

80% belief

20% fact

John

Where are the facts to support this comment?

Ohh I know, you don't need them, just everyone else.

Great

I guess we have to make that

81% belief
19% fact now

on the J Hrlec "Kind of accurate, fact checking table of opinions."

Thanks.





.

Jim O'Bryan wrote:

J Hrlec wrote:

Peter Grossetti wrote:My "belief vs. fact" comment merely addresses the emerging and prevailing tone of the conversation in this thread (and plenty of others on The Deck lately).

I think the LO ratio is currently at:

80% belief

20% fact

John

Where are the facts to support this comment?

Ohh I know, you don't need them, just everyone else.

Great

I guess we have to make that

81% belief
19% fact now

on the J Hrlec "Kind of accurate, fact checking table of opinions."

Thanks.





.

Your probably right Jim, but I want to be like everyone else here. At least yourt starting to recognize it, that's a good start.

Fortunately this is more of a tongue-in-cheek comment about Internet postings rather than a opinion trying to be passed as fact about the city, it's government, or local happenings.

You know what I'm talking about.



... so back on track. I am curious why some people think (3 or 4) garage sales a year is not sufficient per person. Were there stats that supported that a large group of residents perform more than 4 per year? I wasn't sure if there was a reason supporting those ideas.

... and further back on track: what facts support the belief that garage sales/yard sales lower a neighborhood's propery values?

Peter Grossetti wrote:... and further back on track: what facts support the belief that garage sales/yard sales lower a neighborhood's propery values?

Good question, and above that.... other than a resident believing this to be the case for her property, was this (property value) actually a reason documented as to why the city government are looking to add / revise guidelines? Or was it just a blurb related to the discussion?