In Legal Terms
- Volume 51, Number 2 - 2007
Self Governance at Work -- Looking back at a past success.
As Alabama counties begin making their plans to implement the provisions of three new laws passed during the just-ended 2007 Regular Legislative Session, I am drawn to a past success, the Self-Governance Act of 2005.
That law authorizes counties to exercise authority to address certain public nuisances through county ordinance, if such authority is approved by referendum of the voters in the unincorporated areas of the county.
During the 2006 election year, 15 counties passed such referendums,1 and once passed, were faced with the daunting tasks of deciding which powers to implement, and then writing and adopting applicable ordinance as set out in the law.
Many of the “self-governance” counties now have in place specific ordinances aimed at addressing such public nuisances as junk or litter, and others are putting the final touches on theirs.
It has been rewarding as a staff to watch and assist these counties as they embark on this brand new territory. And, it was very exciting for me to recently witness first hand when one such county held its first hearings on enforcement of its new ordinance on junk.
Marshall County was one of the first counties to pass a referendum implementing the Self-Governance Act, with a vote on the referendum during the June 2006 primary.2
The county commission determined that the area of most concern to its residents was “illegal” junk yards, and with the help of ACCA staff and their county attorney, they wrote and adopted an ordinance to address the county’s problems with junk.
The ordinance provided for an enforcement officer to patrol the county and investigate citizen complaints. Complaints started coming in almost immediately, and this energetic officer and his assistant hit the ground running.
The county enforcement officer quickly found two situations warranting action, and moved quickly and carefully to make the cases. The property owners were given warnings and then issued citations, all with proper notice of the steps to take to avoid action by the county commission. Neither abated the nuisance within the time frames set out in the ordinance.
The next step was a hearing before the county commission for it to determine whether or not a public nuisance did exist, and I was invited to attend. I was most impressed with the manner in which these cases had been investigated and presented to the county commission. And, I was very impressed with the determination of the county commission to properly and effectively enforce its ordinance.
In one of the two cases, the property owner had completely refused to cooperate, and in fact, failed to appear for the hearing. Nonetheless, the enforcement officer was called upon to present his evidence supporting the finding that a nuisance existed as defined in the ordinance, and that he had properly warned and cited the offending property owner as required by the ordinance and the Act.
The pictures of the property showed an incredible amount of junk everywhere and of every kind, and all in plain sight. The county commission voted unanimously that there was a public nuisance affecting the public health and welfare and that the property owner was in violation of the county’s ordinance in that regard.
It is anticipated that, rather than abate the nuisance and pay his fines and penalties, this property owner will seek relief from the county’s action in circuit court, so it remains to be seen how this case will conclude. However, the county has already met with success in the second case presented by the enforcement officer.
In the second case, the property owner kept on his property a large number of broken boats, all accumulating water, and all in plain site for all neighbors and passers-by to see. The owner was warned and cited, but took no immediate action to abate the nuisance.
However, when he received his notice of the hearing, he began work on a privacy fence to hide his property from view, and took appropriate action to allow for drainage of any water from the boats.
The owner appeared at the hearing apologetic, and explained what steps he was taking to address the problems. Because of the property owner’s ongoing efforts, the county commission continued the hearing for a month to allow him to complete his work to the satisfaction of the enforcement officer.
This, in my opinion, is a major victory for the county. Investigating and citing this property owner got his attention and got the nuisance abated without a prolonged process and without expense to the county.
It has always been my view that once these ordinances are adopted, and it is clear to the community that the county commission will enforce them, most citizens will be careful to comply with the rules of the county, and the cases requiring action by the county commission will be the exception rather than the rule.
It will be interesting to follow the unresolved case in Marshall County, and to watch for the effect that the diligent enforcement of these new ordinances will have in the unincorporated areas of the counties, which have begun to exercise their new authority to abate certain nuisances.
Once again, many thanks to Marshall County and the other counties that have undertaken these important steps to strengthen the county’s ability to respond to the concerns of its citizens. There will hopefully be a new round of counties “signing on” in 2008, and those counties will all benefit from the experiences of these first “self governance” counties – both where they succeed and where they may fail.
1 The “self-governance” counties are Baldwin, Cherokee, Colbert, Dekalb, Escambia, Macon, Madison, Monroe, Tuscaloosa, Autauga, Dallas, Jackson, Marshall and Mobile.
2 The vote on authorizing the implementation of the powers in the act can only take place in connection with a primary, general or special election called for another purpose.
|
