New Search
(3) In reviewing applications or development proposals the city shall <br /> encouragse property °awnersoto retain , to the max mur extent practicabie4 an eritage <br /> trees located ;upon the parcel being developed. <br /> (4) The council finds that the city's financial resources are insufficient to <br /> pursue " llecged violations of this code <br /> 40110111111tIn °order to ensure some recourse for individuals affected by Ablations of this <br /> section which the cityrwill not pursue, a private cause of action is created. Nothing in, this <br /> section restricts or otherwise affects any enforcement authority,grantedhlsewhere in this <br /> code. <br /> This is written so that the City has first right or respoinsibility to enforce. The <br /> problem with this is that a situation is set up that the complaintaint is going to be <br /> petitioning and placing pressure on the city to act. It also sets up the problem that <br /> we will likely still be required to inspect each complaint to determine the level of <br /> severity. <br /> I think this language will still cause staff to spend considerable time spinning our <br /> wheels. Can we not write this that the City has the same rights to take a person to <br /> court as the private person and not place the City as the first responsible party? <br /> Otherwise I believe unrealistic expectations are raised to the public and that very <br /> well could be a frustrating disservice to our citizens. <br /> Ordinance - 2 08/22/97 <br />