Residents around the Habersham County area have taken to social media and the editorial page to express their frustration over a proposed Derelict Vehicle Ordinance in Habersham County. The proposal was presented to commissioners at their regular monthly meeting on Monday night, March 17.
Since then, hundreds have taken to social media to express their opposition to the proposal, which some call “government overreach.”
Posted by Now Habersham on Tuesday, March 18, 2025
The proposed ordinance seeks to prohibit the storage of derelict vehicles on public and private property, except in authorized salvage yards or repair facilities. It defines derelict vehicles as abandoned, inoperable, dismantled, junked, or unregistered and enforces removal within specific timeframes, with penalties for non-compliance.
Habersham Planning and Development Director Mike Beecham’s presentation to commissioners on Monday was the ordinance’s first public reading. The second reading is scheduled for the commission’s April 21 meeting. Before then, staff and commissioners can make changes to the ordinance. After the second reading, commissioners can take action on the proposal.
Stong online objections
Since Now Habersham’s story about the Derelict Vehicle Ordinance first ran, over 350 people have commented about it on our Facebook page. Kevin Gaddis is among those urging county commissioners to reject the ordinance.
“This is a very overreaching ordinance. This gives way to broad of authority to code enforcement. It’s an abuse of authority if passed and a waste of the court’s time,” Gaddis said. “I urge the commission to think long and hard before passing this ordinance.”
Others expressed their views that the ordinance would change the nature of the county.
“Why are we trying to make this area a metro area?! Stop trying to make Habersham County something that it’s not,” Zach Chitwood commented.
Commissioners Bruce Harkness, Kelly Woodall, and Dustin Mealor contributed to the conversation by responding to numerous social media comments.
RELATED Protect property rights: Reject the overreaching Derelict Vehicles Ordinance
Commissioners respond
Harkness said he agrees with many that the ordinance is overreaching and does not support it.
“I think it’s overreaching and the government needs to be stopped from trying to invade the privacy and property of our taxpayers,” says Harkness. “For the record, I am not in support of this proposed new county ordinance. I will not vote for it at next month’s meeting.”
Mealor felt that it was a bit odd for the ordinance to be brought up without a more indepth discussion among the commission and staff prior to the public hearing. In fact, he says he was unaware of it until the week prior when he received his commission packet.
“My take on this is its gross overreach,” Mealor commented. “I have zero interest in supporting this and have requested it doesn’t even make it to another hearing and instead is canned.”
Addressing why the commission didn’t reject the ordinance outright, Woodall explained, “Legally, I can’t speak directly regarding a pending ordinance that’s being presented to the Board but know we are listening, and we are here to represent you,” he said. “We have to let the process play out before we can vote on it.”
Where did this come from?
Beecham tells Now Habersham the Derelict Vehicle Ordinance is not new. He says it has been in effect for more than 30 years.
“The same provisions have been in effect since at least 1992 in the Comprehensive Land Development Resolution (CLDR). The old Derelict Vehicle Ordinance was removed by mistake sometime in the recent past, and this was simply an attempt to put it back into effect,” he explains.
Beechams says the ordinance no longer needs to be in the CLDR but in the County Code of Ordinances.
“The location is changing in that the proposed ordinance is to be placed in the County Code section containing other nuisances. It seems logical to move it out of Land Development and into the Code section.”
The officers who would enforce the ordinance no longer fall under the Planning and Development Department’s authority; that task would belong to the sheriff’s office which assumed control of code enforcement in February.
Code enforcement
When code enforcement did fall under his department, Beecham says the ordinance was enforced on a complaint-basis system. With only two code enforcement officers, he says his department didn’t have the resources to look for violators arbitrarily. He feels that the same may apply to the sheriff’s office.
“I’ll defer to the Sheriff, but my thoughts are they will probably still work on complaints given the lack of manpower,” he says.
Beecham says the ordinance is not as pervasive as it appears.
“When the previous ordinance was in effect, I’d estimate one to two complaints received per month,” he says. Since the number of complaints was so low, it did not overwhelm the magistrate court. Beecham adds that “Most of those were resolved without going to court.”
Code enforcement officers issued citations but not fines. The citations were for court appearances due to non-compliance.
“All fines are imposed by the Magistrate Judge. Just as with other types of citations, the officers have little control over the fine imposed by the judicial process,” he says.
The proposed ordinance includes carve-outs for salvage yards, repair shops, and art installations. As such, Beecham says the popular bus graveyard off GA 365 on the south end of the county — a lot full of old abandoned buses now used for murals – would not be affected if the ordinance is approved.
