To the Habersham County Commissioners,
During the monthly commissioner’s meeting yesterday I heard about, and subsequently read, the proposed Derelict Vehicles Ordinance with some concern. I believe deeply in the personal freedoms that we, as both Americans and citizens of Georgia, have struggled for, bled for, and many died to protect. I also believe that regulations and laws, while sometimes necessary and appropriate, must take the least intrusive form adequate to protect the interests of society and of the people.
Personal property rights are one of the fundamental bedrocks that our society was founded on, and this ordinance directly infringes on those rights in a way that far exceeds the minimum form needed to protect the government’s interests. If we as Americans want to retain our personal freedoms and limit the scope of government overreach, then we are going to have to do more than just give lip service to the idea of Freedom. We have to closely safeguard those freedoms by squashing tyranny wherever it raises its head, and this ordinance, if passed, would be a perfect example of that tyranny, even if well-intentioned.
If some of the people of Habersham County want to live in a glorified HOA, then they should feel free to incorporate and form one. The rest of us should be left alone as much as possible (subject to appropriate public health and safety concerns) and left free to live our lives and enjoy our own private property.
It was stated during the first reading of this proposed ordinance that the intent is not to target Grandma’s Model-T or Art Installations. However, regardless of the intent and the stated assurances, an Ordinance becomes Law as written. Therefore, since we are a Nation of Laws rather than People, it must also be applied uniformly and fairly. We can’t simply trust the placations of the people that drafted and are currently responsible for enforcing the ordinance; we have to make sure that laws are precisely and correctly written and appropriately limited in scope.
As currently written, this proposed ordinance is applicable not only to Grandma’s Model-T and Art Installations. It is also applicable to the ’76 Ford Truck that your grandson is rebuilding over the course of the summer so that he has a vehicle to take to college. It is applicable to the ’50 Ford Tractor that is no longer needed, but that adds so much to the rural character of our county. By a strict reading of the regulation, it is even applicable to every child’s bicycle that is parked outside of a building.
OCGA 36-60-4, which authorizes the county to implement this ordinance, also circumscribes the limits of that authority. It specifically delegates authority to each county to deal with motor vehicles that are Discarded, Dismantled, Wrecked, Scraped, Ruined, or Junked when they specifically constitute a Health Hazard or Unsightly Nuisance. The present ordinance goes far beyond the limits of that authority in at least the following ways:
1) It expands the definition of Derelict Vehicle beyond the state-provided definitions above and includes any vehicle that is Not Registered and any vehicle that is Partially Dismantled.
2) Many of the items included in the scope of the definition of Vehicle in the ordinance are neither required to be registered, nor is there any way to register such vehicles. This ordinance would make all of those items illegal and subject to removal at the whim of Code Enforcement. Examples include go carts, golf carts, tractors, mobility scooters, bicycles, and wagons, just to name a few.
3) It defines a Vehicle as any means of conveyance, whether self-propelled or not. OCGA 36-60-4 is only applicable to Motor Vehicles. If we need an ordinance, then we can write one, but we shouldn’t appeal to the authority of a state code when that code doesn’t actually support it.
In addition to the fundamental issues highlighted above, there are also typographical errors in the proposed ordinance. One example is that Section 42-60(b) references “any vehicle defined in subsection (d).” That subsection is the definition of Private Property rather than Vehicle, and the reference should instead point to Subsection (f).
Finally, beyond the fundamental issue of private property rights, the fact is that we don’t even need an ordinance to address vehicles abandoned on Public Property. OCGA 40-11-9 provides more than sufficient authority and recourse to the County to address any such vehicles, and so adding duplicate regulations becomes an expensive exercise in Regulations for Regulations Sake—and we are already drowning in regulations.
I know that it is difficult to write a clear, concise, and unambiguous law. However, while I’m sure this ordinance is well intentioned and took a great deal of time and effort to draft, it is also poorly written, overreaching, and should be either extensively re-written or discarded completely. I therefore urge and ask you to reject this proposed ordinance as written.
Brenton Ellis
Clarkesville, GA
To submit a letter to the editor at NowHabersham.com, follow these guidelines.
