Nearly a dozen residents attended the Stephens County Commission’s regular meeting on Tuesday, May 13, to demonstrate opposition to what they describe as the unfair weaponization of longstanding language in the county’s nuisance ordinance.
Among those who spoke was resident Tiffany Lathan, who told commissioners she believes a neighboring landowner – who she said owns over 400 acres adjacent to her property – has used the ordinance to target her directly. While Lathan has not been fined, she said the neighbor reported her to code enforcement over a “completely intact” Jeep that sits on her property.
“(My neighbor) said it was an eye-sore,” Lathan said. “The marshal has been out there twice, never said anything about it…it does not inconvenience (her). It’s not anywhere near (her property).”
Lathan argued that the ordinance potentially opens the door to biased enforcement.
“This (ordinance) allows for selective prosecution, along with malicious intent, favoritism, personal agendas and opinions to dictate how the ordinance is executed and enforced,” she said.
At least two other residents also criticized the ordinance, which dates back to 2012 and prohibits abandoned vehicles and other items deemed nuisances. Violations, when enforced, can result in citations and fines.
Shannon Shirley also shared his frustration with alleged weaponization of the ordinance.
“The way the ordinance is laid out, I no longer get to enjoy the property I’ve bled, sweat, prayed and cried on, and paid for,” he said. “One person from out-of-town that bought a property next to mine – who was fully aware of the way it looked from the start – has been given the power to determine the speed I have to go to continue the progress on my property. It is no longer about pride and joy…it is now based on the new neighbor’s pride and making it better on their terms. They now get to dictate what I may like, and what I don’t. I understand this ordinance, as a whole, and its necessity, but at what point should we decide that our liberty should be trampled on?”
County officials acknowledged the concerns and indicated a willingness to revisit parts of the ordinance, particularly the language that could be applied subjectively.
“This has all just come up today,” County Manager Christian Hamilton said after the meeting. “Of course, we could have citizens who are upset that maybe they’ve been targeted due to a nuisance concern or potential violation. But this situation, I think, revolved around certain property owners.”
Stephens County Commission Chair Tara Simmons echoed that sentiment and said the board is open to revisiting the ordinance’s language in the future.
“I think, certainly, we might go back and look at the specific term ‘eye-sore’,” Simmons said. “I think a nuisance always is going to be an ambiguous term – because what’s a nuisance to you and what’s a nuisance to me are different. I do think we do have some definitions that help clarify that. But eye-sore is very much subjective, so we will take an opportunity to look at that.”
