Mr. Wright provides a nice summary of the ordinance and its effects in his opening paragraphs:
OGDEN -- For Larry Crossley, the Millstream Motel on Washington Boulevard is a good fit.WCF readers can read the rest of yesterday's article here. I do hope WCF readers will take the time to do this.
Left disabled by a car accident 13 years ago, Crossley can't walk far, but it's a short cab ride to any number of retail establishments on 12th Street.
Living at the Millstream, which he has done for the last 18 months, also allows Crossley to limit his banking to two transactions a month. He receives a check for about $1,200 in Social Security disability insurance and writes one for about $700 that covers his rent, gas, electricity and cable.
"I make one payment, and I don't have to worry about it," Crossley said. "This (living here) is just a matter of convenience, really."
Crossley and scores of others who live in a handful of motels on Washington Boulevard soon may be inconvenienced, however, by an ordinance the City Council approved last month.
The ordinance prohibits hotels and motels from keeping any guest for more than three months in a one-year period, if the guest has no other permanent residence.
City officials say the ordinance is necessary because the motels are generating a high number of police calls; because they weren't designed for long-term stays, which creates health and safety issues; and to help stimulate the revitalization of downtown.
But residents of the motels fear the ordinance could render them homeless, and owners of the establishments say it could put them out of business.
As is proving to be the case with thought-provocative John Wright articles, Mr. Wright brings to the forefront issues and questions which require additional thought -- and discussion. Here are a few that immediately come to mind. I'm sure that there are others too:
Do the stated public "objects" of this ordinance, i.e., reducing the number of police responses, conforming residency terms to original design, and helping stimulate the revitalization of downtown fall within the scope of what we expect of out local government; or are they overly-broad?
And even assuming, for sake of argument, that these objects fall within the legitimate scope of government regulation, does the ordinance, as drafted, attempt to do more than it needs to do? Could this ordinance have been drafted more narrowly, to create a less adverse impact to the interests of property owners and long-term residents who depend on such facilities? Has the Ogden City council used a sledge-hammer to solve perceived problems that would be better solved with a fly-swatter?
If the residents of these motels have to be "booted" every ninety days, where are they expected to go? Other motels? The streets? Is this ordinance intended to drive these residents completely out of Ogden?
And what about the treatment of the motel owners themselves? Is is fair that these property owners should have learned about the impairment of their property and contract rights only after the ordinance was passed? Even though there may not have been a statutory requirement that they receive notice and opportunity to be heard, wouldn't fairness have dictated that they would be invited to argue their "points" before the Ogden City council, prior to having their rights summarily stripped from them?
As I've mentioned before in this space, it's my fear that Ogden City is presently governed by an overbearing, cold and heartless soviet-style city government that's completely lost touch with its own citizenry. Am I alone in this perception, or are there others who'd like to chime-in on this topic this morning?
Have at it, gentle readers...
Update 8/15/05 1:11 p.m. M.T: The Standard-Examiner has a particularly compassionate and humane editorial in this morning's edition, and Don Porter also printed a thoughtful reader letter on the subject. The Std-Ex editorial board and its readership seems to understand the difference between fly-swatters and sledge hammers. What's wrong with the government of Ogden City?
You can read today's editorial here, and Joy Ditter's reader letter here.
