Editorial

Just an Ordinary Man
 

The current Junk Ordinance, that was passed under the "health and safety" argument used in the Home Rule legislation, contains a definition of junk that is so all-encompassing, that a further phrase is need in the ordinance such that the junk must pose a nuisance.  Using the definition of nuisance found in the referenced State Code we see that a nuisance is"  

Anything that works hurt, inconvenience, or damage to another. The fact that the act done may otherwise be lawful does not keep it from being a nuisance. The inconvenience complained of must not be fanciful, or such as would affect only one of a fastidious taste, but it should be such as would affect an ordinary reasonable man.

In the absence of specific definable activities and behaviors that are codified by law, the legal system relies heavily on the judgment of the "ordinary reasonable man" as to whether a specific action or group of actions should be sanctioned by the judicial system, representing society. In the instance of the junk ordinance, the only "ordinary reasonable man" seems to be the Junk Enforcement Officer, appointed by the Marshall County Commission.  He is the only person who decides if an ordinance violation has occurred.

Not a Health and Safety Issue

Under the Junk Ordinance, if you shield your "junk" from view by a fence, it is no longer a violation.  This wording in the ordinance completely removes any "heath and safety" concerns and leaves only the "inconvenience" or annoyance factor. So here we have one person being annoyed and the offender is made extremely unhappy with government interference on their own property.

The Declaration of Independence, the cornerstone document of our Constitution states, "all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness"

Notice two things here.  Rights are not given by government and the "pursuit of Happiness" is put on the same level as life and liberty by the founders of the United States. In one vote by the County Commission, one person being mildly annoyed, is now elevated above the rights to life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness.

Attack on the Weak

There are no provisions in the junk ordinance that make allowance for persons who are disabled by physical or mental impairment caused by disease, injury, congenital defect or by normal aging process.  The County Commission has effectively raised a barrier that prevents some people from complying  - a direct violation of Federal Americans With Disabilities Act. Nor is there any provision for assisting those who cannot comply due to lack of financial resources. All in all, the County Commission has selected their role so as to ignore the needs of the most vulnerable disabled, elderly and poor citizens of the county.  Either that or they are just not competent enough to draft a "reasonable" ordinance.  In either case, they do not appear to have exercised ordinary reason and therefore, perhaps, should not be in positions of such responsibility and authority they have given themselves..

Since the County Commission has chosen to use the "ordinary reasonable man test" there is an obvious conflict between the Junk Enforcement Officer - ordinary reasonable man - and the person being cited - ordinary reasonable man.  The real question that must be asked is: 

Would an ordinary reasonable person under the same physical and financial limitation and circumstances, act as the person being cited by the Junk Enforcement Officer?

Being "reasonable" means having the faculty of reason, acting rationally governed by reason. The behavior can be called "reasonable" if the activities can be valued as fair, just, or equitable. The person must be honest, moderate, sane, sensible, and tolerable. "Reasonable" implies a certain standard of values.  What evaluation did the County Commission undertake to ensure the Junk Enforcement Officer met the definition of "ordinary reasonable man"?  What values were implicit in his appointment?  Do his values match those of the people in the unincorporated areas of Marshal County?

Junk Laws Make Junk Government

In the absence of a quantifiable definition of junk, the County Commission has engaged in an exercise of lazy governance.  By applying and investing in the Junk Enforcement Officer as the only "ordinary reasonable man" (are women disqualified?) in determining when a  violation of the junk ordinance has occurred, the Commission has removed the citizens of the unincorporated areas of the county from being considered ordinary reasonable persons. The junk ordinance tramples citizens rights and opens the door for passage of more intrusive government interference in our lives whenever someone else is annoyed by our behavior.  Ordinances and laws of this nature are artfully crafted and worded so as not to alarm the ordinary citizen on first reading, but it is a slow and constant creep towards more and more government control and infringement of individual rights.

The current ordinance truly is a "junk" ordinance that should be removed from the books and thrown in the trash.  Whatever amount the County Commission paid to the Lawyers who crafted the ordinance, it was too much.  Of course it was only our tax dollar at work.