“Towing” the line

Maybe because I’m a rule follower I don’t get the appeal of appealing the permanent injunction issued Aug. 2 against Chapel Hill’s towing and cell phone ordinances. But last Wednesday, in a special Town Council meeting called before the Sept. 4 deadline to appeal, six of nine council members voted to file an appeal for both the towing and cell phone ordinances. (Penny Rich explained that they are treated as a package because George King, owner of George’s Towing, bundled them that way in his lawsuit against the town.)

Rich joined Mayor Mark Kleinschmidt, Ed Harrison, Jim Ward, Gene Pease and Donna Bell in voting for the appeal that on the surface looked like a move solely to protect council’s collective ego – a “we’re not gonna let a tow truck operator tell us what we can and can’t do” sort of thing.

But the mayor explained it differently.

“I supported the appeal because of the likelihood of getting answers to larger policy questions related to the scope of municipal authority,” Kleinschmidt said. “There is no significant workload or cost associated with getting answers to these kinds of questions and would not only benefit us, but also other communities across the state.”

Not that town attorney Ralph Karpinos has a lot of extra time on his hands, what with the lawsuit from the Sanitation Two and potential lawsuits from neighbors-against-growth groups that have learned council caves at the threat of well-off residents threatening legal action.

Side carnage of the town losing the lawsuit is that other municipalities now know definitively the limits of their authority to pass ordinances that interfere with commerce or go beyond state laws. The town made this mess, and I give Kleinschmidt credit for trying to clean it up.

But I give Lee Storrow even more credit. He, Matt Czajkowski and Laurin Eastom voted not to appeal. Storrow surprised everyone, because he had voted for the cell phone ordinance in the first place. But this time around, he considered the big picture.

“I knew that this was an open legal question, and that it is the role of the judicial branch to define our municipal authority in this instance,” Storrow said. “One we got a ruling from the Superior Court that we did not have municipal authority, I thought not appealing the case was the responsible thing to do.

“We have major challenges facing us over the next year, and I don’t think it’s a good use of staff time and resources to appeal the case now that we’ve been provided with legal insight.”

George’s Towing has added signs to make the consequences of illegal parking clear. He aggressively does what business owners have hired him to do. Now it’s up to the rest of us to follow the rules.

On a completely unrelated note: Penny Rich and I, who rarely find ourselves on the same side of any issue, do support the same presidential candidate. We waited in line together to pick up our convention credentials, and it took longer than I expected. She graciously saved my place while I left to add more quarters to my parking meter. Congress could learn from such civility.
– Nancy Oates

Share and Enjoy:
  • Print
  • Digg
  • StumbleUpon
  • del.icio.us
  • Facebook
  • Yahoo! Buzz
  • Twitter
  • Google Bookmarks
Previous Post
Next Post
Leave a comment

8 Comments

  1. DOM

     /  August 27, 2012

    “…potential lawsuits from neighbors-against-growth groups that have learned council caves at the threat of well-off residents threatening legal action.”

    Did I miss something? What’s this about?

  2. Nancy Oates

     /  August 27, 2012

    In the discussions about Charterwood, homeowners living around Eastwood Lake threatened to sue if runoff from Charterwood clogged the lake. And a group of property owners adjacent to Charterwood brought a lawyer to explain why the applicant had to wait a year to bring the application back and implied a lawsuit would follow if Charterwood were approved that night. Matt Czajkowski, who had previously voted for Charterwood, voted against it that night. May have been a connection.

  3. Fred Black

     /  August 27, 2012

    On Chapelboro (http://chapelboro.com/Penny-Rich-Talks-Cell-Ban-Towing-Appeals/14063298), Penny Rich is quoted as saying: “Some really good questions were asked,” she says. “I think we all pretty much understood the attorney’s notes to us. At the end of the day everyone agreed to appeal the towing ordinance ruling, and it was a 6-3 vote on appealing the cell phone ban.”

    Indicates to me that there were two votes, not one.

  4. DOM

     /  August 27, 2012

    “And a group of property owners adjacent to Charterwood brought a lawyer to explain why the applicant had to wait a year to bring the application back and implied a lawsuit would follow if Charterwood were approved that night. Matt Czajkowski, who had previously voted for Charterwood, voted against it that night.”

    Sounds like the animals are now running the zoo.

  5. There were two votes. One to appeal the decision on the Towing ordinance and the other regarding the cell phone ordinance. The vote to appeal the towing ordinance decision was unanimous.

  6. Del Snow

     /  September 5, 2012

    I obviously have to get into the unfortunate habit of correcting Nancy’s misstatements.

    For the record: Eastwood Lake neighborhoors NEVER threatened to sue. Mayor Kleinschmidt brought up a lawsuit as a recourse that they would be entitiled to.

    I have no intention of engaging in another nasty discussion on this site. I merely want to recommend that facts be checked before they are stated and disseminated.

  7. Gene Pease

     /  September 6, 2012

    Also for the record, I sat through the numerous meetings regarding this development and although the lawyer representing some of the neighbors didn’t specifically threatened to sue, she certainly implied it.

  8. “…potential lawsuits from neighbors-against-growth groups that have learned council caves at the threat of well-off residents threatening legal action.”

    Did I miss something? What’s this about?

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *