Politicians love passing new laws, bylaws, rules and regulations because it shows how busy they are, working hard for their constituents.
Sadly, when many politicians see issues that need addressing, they would rather implement a band-aid solution, instead of doing the more obvious but much more difficult option of just getting rid of the problem altogether.
So it is with city council and its handling of the RV bylaw. The outcry began earlier this fall when the city decided to remind residents through the local news media that there is a bylaw on the books prohibiting RVs, trailers and boats longer than 6.1 m (20 ft.) from being kept in the front of the home, including the driveway. Even though there was public consultation that started in 2005 and the law was passed in 2007, the whining and moaning began in earnest.
"Private property on private property," was a common refrain posed on our website. That's the common rally cry against government infringing on the personal freedoms of citizens, used for everything from registering guns to turning the backyard into a funeral home for rusted vehicles. Those same people are be the first ones to call bylaw enforcement if the neighbour decides to add three storeys to his family home, build a garage that goes right to the property line or add a nice swimming pool but refuse to fence it and put a lock on the gate.
Too bad if the neighbour's kid drowns, this is private property on private property. Maybe parents should look after their brats.
Governments at all levels pass laws restricting what homeowners can and can't do on their land, so the argument that there is no justification for the RV bylaw doesn't make sense. There is plenty of justification and citizens rightly expect their governments to enforce those laws when they are violated.
Here lies the real problem with the RV bylaw.
Senior staff and city council insist on keeping a law on the books that they have no desire to enforce.
Why?
Since 2012, no tickets have been issued ($25 for not removing the RV or trailer from the street, $200 for refusing to get it out of the driveway), city manager Beth James informed council. Instead, city staff have a polite chat with the offenders and work on "voluntary compliance."
Why?
What preciously is the point of government passing a law and imposing a fine structure for offenders?
The answer is both simple and cynical. Lawmakers want to pass laws, whether they're needed or not. Bureaucrats want to enforce laws. Both want the discretion to enforce the laws at their leisure. Good Citizen parking his 30-foot RV on one side of his long triple-wide paved driveway is no problem, so long as that's the only infraction. Bad Citizen parking the same RV in the same driveway but the target of constant warnings about noise, unlicensed renovations, unlicensed home business activity, excessive traffic and garbage stacked high the back yard can expect that $200 RV parking fine.
There are plenty other worthwhile bylaws, however, to sort out Bad Citizen.
The root problem is not the RV law itself but the actions of city staff. If politicians elected by their peers pass a law, that law should be enforced by those who are paid to enforce them, instead of being ignored or taken as the starting point in a conversation with offenders. A law that citizens ignore obeying and bureaucrats don't enforce sends the message that other laws can be also be flagrantly ignored. That is a slippery slope that shouldn't be tolerated.
That being said, laws that aren't being followed or enforced should also be reviewed for their relevance.
Under that spotlight, the city's RV rules make as much sense as keeping that 30-year-old gas-guzzling pollution-spewing Class-C RV with the leaky roof on the road.
Both belong in the junkyard.
