shift(y) around due process?
tommyGovernment: Guilty until proven… bah - your just guilty.
While looking over the Tampa’s RSS feed for City Notices, I learned that the Ybor City Development Corp submitted proposed changes to the Wet-Zoning Ordinance. I know - I need to get a life, but since the City has been screwing with noise regulations that mostly effect bars, I thought I should take a quick look.
In addition to the 15 pages of legal mumbo jumbo (pdf) (the actual ordinance and revisions) on the YCDC’s list of regulations, they provide a summary of proposed changes (pdf) written in somewhat understandable terms.
The 2 page summary tells of changes to reporting requirements, deadlines, and the new ability for City Council to suspend wet zoning, rather than just revoke it. In addition, there are a handful of “clean up language due to changes.”
But one of these seems (to me) grossly misleading. From the summary:
City Council may now suspend a wetzoning (rather than just revoke) for violations of the City’s noise regulations and Restaurant reporting requirements (Sec. 3-80).
It goes on to suggest suspension guidelines, etc.
But on the full text Revised Wet Zone Ordinance 06-15-06 (pdf, scroll to page 14), the City of Tampa is actually changing the definition of “violation.” As it exists now, a business owner must be found guilty (or plead no contest) in a court of law before they are subject to revocation. Under the proposed changes (emphasis mine),
The terms “violation” or “violated” shall mean being found in non-compliance with any part of this chapter, as determined by the reviewing city department.
The “reviewing city department?” Do they mean the Police? Code Enforcement? the YCDC?
Now again, I’m just a regular guy who sings in a local rock ‘n’ roll band. I certainly don’t know the law, like some other bloggers with smarts, and find it difficult to translate some of the legalese. So, I may be reading this all wrong.
But to change the definition of a word to avoid due process just doesn’t seem fair, especially given my belief that the noise readings are inaccurate. And then to ignore it in the summary (in the hopes that no one reads further?) seems underhanded and dubious.
I’m certainly biased about the new noise regs. But perhaps I am also paranoid. So if you have time to look at this, I really want to know – what do you think?
Tags: business, city, law enforcement, music, tampa
Loading ...
July 18th, 2006 at 2:42 pm
I wonder what would happen if people started emailing the city or the police to complain it’s too quiet in Ybor?
July 18th, 2006 at 9:48 pm
I don’t see that they’ve changed the meaning of the word “violation,” they just haven’t figured out who they want doing the dirty work. And I clicked ALL those links. All 13 of them.
July 20th, 2006 at 10:18 am
I was told to email Pam Iorio about my issues with Ybor City’s noise ordinance and other issues contributing to Ybor City’s slow demise. This was from a well placed City of Tampa offical last week. He said she DOES read her emails. I don’t remember her direct email address, someone out there may know. I was specificaly addressing JGLB’s noise citation as opposed to how loud the open air bars (Fuel) are and the injustice of it.