Here are a few of the empty and inapplicable phrases that politicians in Whitewater often use to describe and justify their actions. They’ve used far more expressions than these, but we can consider this post the first in an occasional series.

Bring solutions, not problems. I’ve teased about this before, yet this expression is as profound as it was the day I first saw it in an email. Not quite as good as “There’s no I in TEAM,” or “If you get lemons, make lemonade,” but it’s still pretty good.

I could kick myself when I think that I was born without insight this piercing.

Let’s not micromanage the department. I’ve teased about this before, too. Let’s be clear — One cannot micromanage our police department unless one first manages it.

Death knell. I’ve heard the expression more than once, concerning the encroachment of student housing into residential neighborhoods.

What, though, does the tune – the actual knell, so to speak – sound like? Is it low and sonorous, or high-pitched and piercing?

If one hears the death knell, it’s presumably a bad thing. That might be true for most of us, but what about the hard-of-hearing? Are they affected? If one does not hear a death knell, does it truly transform the residential mix of a neighborhood? If one cannot hear it, then perhaps it makes no demographic sound.

If so, then a group of homeowners with bad hearing would have much better chance of preserving their neighborhood from the depredations of student renters.

Let’s not open the flood gates to resolutions. Should I conclude that we’ve yet to reach a point of too much discussion on some matters – as though it has not happened, but might?

The flood gates were long ago opened to the hopelessly trivial, in our public meetings. If matters of American constitutional law are now too much for you, you have only yourself to blame. Quibble less on small matters, and find the energy for large ones.

Floodgates? Having tolerated the descent of the city into a Waterworld of silly discussion, there’s no longstanding incumbent in the city who should be complaining now.

If one were to repeat these four expressions elsewhere, they’d merely be trite.

Say the same words against the backdrop of Whitewater politics, and each one is low comedy. Add a few tigers jumping though flaming hoops, or a chimp riding a tricycle, and the city would have a suitable Vegas act.

This morning I offered a blind quotation describing a social group. I asked if you might recognize in the description some people you know.

Here’s the quotation, once more –

[L]ocals were overwhelmed. Modern…ways and the waves of foreigners had created among them a sense of panic, he said, “the erosion of everything traditional and a real sense of insecurity.” In the minds of the locals, the world they knew was disappearing…. “It’s a very pervasive feeling for a large portion of the population.”

Unless (and improbably) you have read about Saipan, and how the indigenous population has reacted to immigrants from Asia with a mixture of envy and hostility, then you would – quite reasonably – not have guessed the subject of the quotation.

It’s an observation from Samuel McPhetres, as John Bowe quotes him in Bowe’s recent book, Nobodies: Modern American Slave Labor and the Dark Side of the New Global Economy. The quotation is a description of Saipan’s first residents.

You might, instead, have supposed that the quote was a reference to Whitewater’s stodgy, stagnant town faction.

It would have been a fair guess. One could not fault you for looking for a group close at hand, and so fitting for the quotation.

Saipan, though, is far away. It’s part of a failed, multi-island commonwealth, suffering from an ailing economy, ineffective government, and social hostility from longstanding residents against newcomers.

Some people here — those who think that this town belongs principally to them — would be insulted at any comparison with Saipan. Each and every one of them must think that he or she is more important, cultured, and fair-minded than the inhabitants of Saipan, a tropical island turned rat hole.

Our self-designated town squires and their narrow coterie may rest assured — the author of the quotation did not you have you in mind.

Then again, I don’t think that he’s yet visited Whitewater. more >>

Whitewater has had an ordinance, seldom enforced, that limits the number of cars that may be parked outside on certain parts of a residential property. Members of the Council had understandable trouble determining what our current two-car limitation really meant – the jumble of definitions of side yard, front yard, etc. is like a parody of regulation.

Some of the definitions of areas of a house will make no sense to most people, and their enforcement will only make Whitewater look ridiculous.

An amendment to the existing ordinance will now allow three cars where two were permitted. That’s not 50% more generous – it’s 100% as intrusive and meddlesome.

There’s a question about whether the ordinance will be enforced in response to complaints, or comprehensively. Some at the meeting expressed understandable concern – given the city’s sketchy reputation for enforcement – that the provisions would be enforced selectively.

There are two good reasons to contend that it will be enforced selectively

If the ordinance is enforced in response to citizen complaints, then it is by definition enforced selectively.

If, as someone observed, the new ordinance derives from a desire to protect single family housing, then it will almost certainly be enforced selectively. If that motivation controls, rather than a comprehensive one, then selective enforcement will be the result.

If the city started ticketing everyone in every neighborhood who violated this ordinance, they would have to hold long-term residents, friends etc. to the same standard as students and newcomers. Exceptions and selective enforcement – an exercise of discretion in dubious ways – will be tempting.

Not even tempting – what temptation would be required, really, if the motivation is to preserve a certain class of housing?

I have written before that I consider civil enforcement (of ordinances, etc.) broken. (See, for example, Our Enforcement Culture. Many people in many towns have doubts about the reasonable, fair, unbiased enforcement of ordinances; those concerns are more serious in Whitewater.

It was, after all, only last fall that a longstanding member of Common Council remarked on her concern about unbiased enforcement during a council meeting. Ms. Kienbaum is hardly what one would consider a dissenter; if she has voiced even some of these concerns, it’s a sign of how prevalent they are in our town.

The many challenges of enforcement in Whitewater were a principal concern of our latest Council meeting. Two topics dressed enforcement matters: (1) number of automobiles to be parked lawfully, and where, at local residences, and (2) the number of unrelated people who may live together at a residential property.

I will consider the topics in reverse order, as the number of unrelated people who may live together at a residential property is the more significant.

The Council considered, and approved a change in a municipal ordinance regulating the number of residents in a non-family household.

There’s no question in my mind that the motivation of the ordinance’s proponent, Atty. Terry Race, is understandable. He has had what one could only describe by understatement as a challenging year with his neighbors. I have sympathy for anyone in his situation (although few people have been as unfairly treated as he has been).

When someone with his recent experiences observes that our current system is broken, it’s impossible reasonably to disagree. One may say that Atty. Race and I both see a problem, but we do not hold to the same solution

Here is our municipal code regarding non-family households, from Section 19.09.520:

“Non-family household” means a group of individuals who do not constitute a family under the terms of this title and who live as a single household in a dwelling unit. Within the R-1 and R-2 districts, a non-family household shall be limited to three unrelated persons. Within the R-3 district, a non-family household shall be limited to five unrelated persons.

His proposal offered, among other elements, the following addition to Section 19.09.520 (emphasis in blue mine):

This Ordinance is meant to ensure the right of quiet enjoyment of each property owner, or resident of their home. The constant or consistent presence of visitors to a particular residence can constitute the equivalent of additional persons living there, for land use purposes, regardless if they are listed as residents on a lease or deed, if the “quiet enjoyment” of other’s property rights are affected. For the purposes of this section, quiet enjoyment shall mean actions by occupants or visitors which unreasonably disturbs other property owners or occupants enjoyment of their premises.

In addition to any other penalties or remedies the City, or any landowner within 300 feet of the property, may maintain an action or injunctive relief to restrain any violation of this Ordinance and/or to enforce compliance with this Ordinance, upon a showing that a person has engaged, or is about to engage, in an act or practice constituting a violation of this Ordinance.

This amendment grants significantly expanded power to the city, so much so that the city may act when it assumes a person is about to engage in an act against quiet enjoyment. An ordinary private party may be constrained by litigation costs where the city has no equal concern.

We have now given a city that has unwisely exercised its authority greatly expanded, additional authority.

Where I differ is the idea that a broken enforcement culture can be easily repaired through legislation. So little having been done before (despite the homeowner’s own efforts), I am unpersuaded that a new ordinance will bring a better approach.

Our law has changed, but all the people involved are the same. One may contend that Whitewater was hamstrung without adequate ordinances, but ‘broken’ – that’s my characterization from months ago — suggests problems far greater than a gap in an ordinance.

If I thought that we could legislate our way out of these problems, then I might favor additional legislation. I have no confidence in that approach.

Events in Whitewater make me more than skeptical – I have no confidence that additional ordinances, amendments to ordinances, or administrative proposals will do us any good.

I simply don’t believe, so to speak.

A remedy is possible, but I contend that a different one is needed. Our experiences are too checkered to ask for anything other than new beginning with how our city sees, understands, and enforces existing ordinances.

We have failed for reasons more serious than lack of an adequate ordinance, however sincere the proposal may be. We can recover, but our failings are an indictment of current municipal practices and practitioners, not of inadequate ordinances.

Over at the Oshkosh Northwestern, there’s a story just posted that the City of Oshkosh has offered the city manager’s post to Mark Rohloff of Grand Chute.

(Current Whitewater City Manager Kevin Brunner had been a candidate for the Oshkosh position.)

Crystal Lindell of the paper reports that Rohloff was the only candidate to receive a second interview.

(There might, of course, still be a snag in details that would prevent Rohloff’s taking office. That seems, however, improbable.)

It’s great reporting from Lindell to live-blog the Oshkosh deliberations at her blog, Northwestern Notes. She also has a fine sense of humor, as she notes that she’s paid “to sit through six-hour city government meetings and then create interesting leads about the three-hour debate on TIF districts.”

She deserves acknowledgment for her solid work.