Regardless of Briarmoon’s personality or attitude, her barn situation should have been reassessed the moment the city enacted an improved raze or repair ordinance. The raze order should have been automatically terminated. Insisting that she must still follow a retired if not unreasonable ordinance is ……..unreasonable. Yeah, she didn’t do anything (repairs) till she got the raze order. Yeah, she went ahead and made repairs without the proper permits. But it should be said that the permits were automatically denied because of the old raze order which was soon deemed harsh. The city changed the ordinance to allow a property owner a chance for repairs first before it issues a raze order. This reform only happened because of Briarmoon's opposition in the first place and it corrects situations just like hers. It was a classic catch-22.
Councilmen Williams, DeGarmo and Brunner’s oath and duty to uphold the law is commendable, but to apply zero tolerance to what - this old shed and its misunderstood and overbearing owner? In all due respect to the councilmen, they need to lighten up. Give her amnesty with a written warning of sorts about violating city ordinances but please………….spare the shed! You'll feel better if you do.
JG challenge to Briarmoon:
Briarmoon claims the repairs meet code. If so, we issue this challenge: Let a building inspector confirm that within the next two weeks. That would strenghten her case for letting the structure stand.
Rock netroots: I’d second that motion. Whether Briarmoon and some councilmen have some bizarre running feud is irrelevant to the current condition of her little barn. If it passes a fair inspection, the shed should stay. Briarmoon would be smart to accept this challenge. Otherwise, her entire claim will lack credibility and her motivations will be exposed as self-serving if not a complete travesty.
I can’t blame some of the councilmen for being uptight about some of the rant from the shed’s owner. But using this episode as a reason to quit the council is a poor one, in my opinion. I suspect Tom Brien wanted out anyways for different reasons of his own choice. Which is fine, except not defending yourself against falsehoods just doesn’t make sense. In our imperfect world, lies never discourage anyone, only the hard truth can do that. When the going gets tough, the tough should get going.
JG excerpt:
As for Briarmoons credibility and objectives, I think most citizens clearly understand her goals. And she, if she is truly concerned with our community, will work to build community rather than cause division.—Don A******
Rock netroots
Well said. But before unity can come, there has to be closure on the barn. Briarmoon has many good and valid gripes that may go wasted because of what seems to be irrational exuberance on her part. Again, the council can take the hardline and tear it down. But codes that are dubiously written or incomplete leave too much open to interpretation and if everyone is on a different page, the establishment loses its rationale for enforcement. Because this case possesses the slightest benefit of doubt, the council should take the high road and let the shed stand.
JG excerpt:
Staff (city) says that allowing the shed to stand would avoid potential future litigation costs.
But it would reward uncooperative behavior, damage the city’s credibility, and create the perception that the city wasted $41,000 in legal fees. And the city would be liable for anyone hurt in the shed. Tear it down, staff said.
I don’t know how anyone can think that tearing down the shed will justify the $41,000 spent in legal fees. As far as I’m concerned, no matter what happens to the shed, that money was wasted. If the owner insists on becoming the building inspector for her own property, it can be assumed she has taken all responsibility for its condition. If liability is an issue, the city can make a note of this on her deed and all liability can be applied to Briarmoon and her heirs. This condition can run with the land until the shed is destroyed or razed.
One thing I have gathered from all of this is the idea that the council is working against their own constituency. As a homeowner in Janesville, if I were to have a problem/disagreement with city code or its interpretation, I would expect the council to go to bat for me regardless of my personality or politics. Why have previous negotiations been allowed to fail? What were the circumstances? Certainly they have to protect the cities interest first, but they must give each resident the benefit of the doubt. They lose all credibility by giving anything less.
3 comments:
In all honesty, I have not been following the barn issue for 25 years. Ever since Briarmoon cried about the sentimental value of the shed while she rented out the property did I become interested in the cities response to her obvious deception. So it's been about four years maybe.
I don't think the city was "taking the high road" with her 25 years ago by ignoring her. That was not her fault to be ignored.
That she was able to raise five kids and own a home without any apparent income with or without welfare is an accomplishment. Under those circumstances it is no wonder she could not afford any home improvements. Obviously her economic situation has changed since then, but all the history you just shared is unfortunately irrelevant to the situation today because the city failed to act. The city failed a second time by letting it go to court.
My liability suggestion may/may not be legal but it was intended to accomplish exactly what you surmised, that those who insist on the responsibility may think twice when claim$ come back to haunt them. Plus, it would make an interesting family discussion at the Briarmoons.
I think the city failed a third time with the recent vote to raze. The sheds owner has some major issues and the council should have treated her as "disabled" to put it mildly. But I think they are wrong, and it's just my opinion.
If the city was aware of her violations 25 years ago and all the way up to say 5 years ago and did nothing then, I would think she was only half the problem, and that the city just to be fair, must concede something and give her a chance to square up any violations.
My point was to let the shed stand only if it met current codes, that's why I felt the Gazette's suggestion (rare)was good. To have it inspected one more time and if it passed, let it stand. I thought the city could have taken the "high road" and acknowledged their own faults on this case, but also punish her with fines for doing work without a permit, etc, at the same time backing off conditions claims until the she was ready for an inspection(say 3 months). Of course all of my support for the shed disappears if it failed code the day they tore it down. I never said the condition of the shed was not her fault.
But she seemed adamant for the shed to stand based on her own unlicensed inspection, and if documented she would assume full liability, which can be tremendous. That's why I suggested the deed condition.
Now that the shed is gone, I expect Briarmoon to take the "high road", lick her wounds and come back with some humility. But if she takes the same road the council took, we haven't heard the last of her.
I greatly appreciate you sharing your view, that's what it's all about, regardless who is right or wrong.
Well, it would not be fair, that is precisely the point. As you probably know, when a person passes away and leaves an estate, the listed heirs have inherited all property and financial responsibility of the deceased. If the inheritance exceeds debt, the debt will most likely have to be paid back. I'm just generalizing of course. So getting back to the shed, conditions on the property usually run with the land and something like liability would have to be accepted by the new owner, thus relieving you of the responsibility, but who would want to buy it with that condition on the deed? The idea was to force the issue back within the (entire)family and let them decide whether the shed to stand. I understand Ms. Briarmoon is a real estate agent, she would be able to explain it.
Post a Comment