The most recent Fairhope City Council meeting sure looked like it was going to be an easy evening. The agenda was light; the attendees, few in number. No apparent hot-button issues. No angry crowds spilling over into the vestibule.
Mayor Kant wasn’t even there, so it was up to City Planner Greg Mims to squire the passage of six zoning ordinance amendments through the public hearing. If all went well the council could even pass the amendments by suspending the usual procedural rules. And it started out smoothly. First item: “Site Density.” Fixed the wording, A-OK, passed.
But things started to get a little muddled when taking on the seemingly straightforward issue of “Storage and Parking of Trailers and Commercial Vehicles.” The Planning Commission recommended no change to the restrictions on where these big vehicles could be parked on private property. Council Member Ford called their action “Overbearing” and causing harm to “poorer people.”
Not so, said Council President Bob Gentle. “If you can afford one of these vehicles, you can afford to store it properly.” But regardless of the issue of affordability (related to the cost of building parking pads and paving driveways), residents in the audience took exception to casually adding requirements for more paving when run-off is already a major concern. One resident focussed on another part of the problem, “What about having these vehicles parked on the streets all the time?” No concern or action when a motor home or boat on a trailer sits indefinitely on the street where it is an even greater eyesore than when parked on the grass in somebody’s back yard. Unresolved; laid-over for resolution at a later date
Next up: “Buffer Widths, Lighting and plant materials.” After Greg made it clear that big, tall 6-foot shrubs – not wimpy short ones – were envisioned in the amendment, things went well. The council was able to vote for approval and move on to Amendment 4: “Sidewalks in the Central Business District.” The purpose is to mandate 8-foot-wide sidewalks. While noting that most downtown walks were just 6 feet wide, a resident asked how the extra two feet could be accommodated. “Tear down the front of the building?”
No, not to worry – no buildings will be harmed in enacting this ordinance. It applies only to new construction and then only where it will fit in with existing sidewalks. Voted on and passed. The council was on a roll. Even the next amendment which asked the seemingly esoteric and semi-existential question (given the venue), “What is a family?” was approved quickly.
But then the wheels came off when faced with public passions surrounding the related subject of “Short-term Rentals.” The amended ordinance defines “short-term” as less than 30 days and requires the owners of any such rental property to get a business license and pay lodging taxes. Further, no short-term rentals would be permitted in neighborhoods zoned for single family residences. (See the connection this and determining what “family” means?)
Seemed reasonable to me – if it’s a business, it’s not a single family residence, but first to speak was a Realtor who handles vacation rentals. “Don’t restrict,” she asks. “Very strict,” she is. “No parties,” she rules. “Never had a complaint,” she professes. Sounds too good to be true and apparently is – at least according to Council Member Debbie Quinn, who noted that she had gotten a lot of complaints: “Cars, trash, parties and they leave in three days.” Several residents of North Mobile Street, where there are at least three vacation rental properties along the bluff, confirmed this and described parties, disruptions, and illegal activities in and around these properties. Another resident added, “It’s gone on for years.”
Dean Mosher bypassed talking about the effects of having commercial rentals scattered throughout residential neighborhoods. With his usual eloquence, he framed the issue in the context of uniform enforcement of laws and regulations, noting he recently converted a family-owned residential property into a B&B. In doing this, he applied for re-zoning, secured a business license, renovated the property to meet city codes for public accommodations and only then did he open for business.
In contrast, the owners of a “classic” Fairhope cottage, literally next door to his B&B, stuck out a sign offering “Daily, Weekly and Monthly Rentals” without a license, without conforming to zoning and without any evidence of meeting safety standards. The sign was up for months and the city apparently did nothing about it. Dean closed by asking, “Why have rules and not enforce them?”
And I’m going to close this chronology of the council meeting at this point. This was the last amendment considered and as you might have expected, no action was taken. But the most important reason for stopping now is that Dean’s rhetorical question makes my point. The leadership of Fairhope needs to get serious about enforcement.
Rules and regulations are worth nothing if not carefully crafted and vigorously enforced. What I have described in a single council meeting are just a few easy-to-find examples of the problem (and to be fair to the council this problem is not limited to Fairhope). Too often well-meaning members of the mayor’s staff or citizens’ groups have “fixed” problems by creating regulations that superficially address complaints, but are never effectively enforced.
Maybe it’s too hard, or other things have a higher priority. I’m not sure, but I do know that whatever causes this absence of action is allowing the degradation of quality-of-life in the community. The whole process looks haphazard and even capricious when violations routinely go uncorrected
If a measure is worth enacting, it’s worth enforcing. So get serious and do it.
Contact Pete Gleszer at jubilee@lagniappemobile.com.
Archives
Jubilee
