[thenightwriterblog] The Night Writer: Loving your neighbor in Inver Grove Heights

[notify at powerblogs.com]

Posted by The Night Writer:
Loving your neighbor in Inver Grove Heights
http://thenightwriterblog.powerblogs.com/posts/1191209018.shtml


   Last week the [1]Inver Grove Heights City Council met to hear from the
   public regarding a new property maintenance ordinance aimed at
   instituting certain appearance, maintenance and lawn-care standards
   for private homes. As with many laws, especially those regarding
   private property, this ordinance wasn't aimed at defining or
   protecting an owner's property rights, but at criminalizing poor or
   indifferent citizenship. Of course, it's all for a good cause: "It's
   for the children," one of the proponents said.
   Apparently, it's more harmful for children to see a messy yard than it
   is for them to see adults taking their neighbors to court to resolve a
   problem instead of pitching in to help.
   As a property-owner I know how discouraging and aggravating it can be
   to share a neighborhood -- or even a property-line -- with an
   "eye-sore" home and lot. I am much more concerned, however, with the
   ever-increasing encroachments on property rights, typically in the
   name of "doing good." From Kelo, to smoking bans, to how high you let
   the grass grow, it's an ever-expanding power-grab passed off as being
   for the common good without any real examination of how much good --
   or how much harm -- is actually being done. (On a side-note, I heard
   one news-reader on KFAN this a.m. referring to the new state-wide
   smoking ban in bars and restaurants, say the ban "does not apply to
   private homes at this time" -- suggesting, what?)
   In this particular case, this issue for me is not just a legal or
   conservative one about rights and what you can get people to go along
   with, it is a moral and Biblical one as well. Usually it seems that if
   you raise a moral issue these days it's assumed that you want to
   impose some narrow-minded "thou shalt not" on other people. In this
   case the "thou shalt nots" being imposed are coming from the larger
   public and what's being missed is the "thou shall" Biblical
   instruction. You know, the one that "thou shall love thy neighbor as
   thyself." Note, that doesn't say "love they neighbor only if thy
   neighbor is a believer," nor does it say "if you are a believer, thou
   shall love thy neighbor."
   What if that neighbor with the dilapidated house or junky yard is
   someone struggling just to make ends meet and can't afford to make the
   improvements to the paint or siding that the community deems to be
   necessary? What if that neighbor is working two or three jobs and
   might skip mowing the lawn from time to time? What if your neighbors
   are an elderly couple who don't have the physical, let alone
   financial, resources to maintain the property but are trying to live
   independently? Shall we just have our pubic servants, the police,
   march up to the door and slap a citation on it? Certainly it would be
   "legal." Or, alternatively, shall we walk up to the door in person,
   knock on it and say, "Hi, you may not know me but I'm your next-door
   neighbor and I was wondering if there was something I could do to
   help?"
   Ok, so what if that neighbor is a lazy bum who's perfectly capable of
   maintaining his house or yard, or is someone who just likes to use old
   washing machines as lawn statuary? Well, it could be that your offer
   might not be well-received, or that your neighbor might think that
   you're the nutjob. But if a succession of people approached him or her
   over time and offered to help (as opposed to demanding that he or she
   "straighten up") what effect could that have? The neighbor would know
   that people are paying attention, that they care about the
   neighborhood and their property values, and that they're willing to
   try to help first rather than condemn. He may not change his attitude
   completely but he may be motivated to try to make some improvements
   (even grudgingly) or even accept an offer of help. Which approach do
   you think ultimately contributes to a better neighborhood?
   If that is starting to sound like a good idea to you, but you're
   thinking, "yeah, why can't the government do something to help that
   guy?" then you're still missing the point. A lot of the problems we're
   facing in our communities come from the fact that we've allocated to
   the government the responsibility of looking out for the well-being of
   those around us, of loving our neighbors. Sure, we mean to "do good"
   by passing new laws and taxes but we're merely passing off our
   personal responsibility to do good to another, impersonal (and usually
   less efficient) entity.
   Now it could be that your neighbor is a loser with no conscience or
   sense of shame who will readily accept help from you and your neighbor
   and just sit back and figure someone will always bail him out and
   never lift a finger himself. There's certainly precedent for that
   happening when the help comes from a faceless government, but may not
   be so common when there are real faces involved. It's worth a try at
   least to see if you can make a difference, and if someone is totally
   resistant or irresponsible there are other Biblical examples of how to
   deal with an unrepentent individual (and no, they don't involve
   stoning -- I'm thinking Matthew 18:15-17).
   Furthermore, do we know how many people might fall into this latter
   category, and might it be worthwhile to figure it out before writing
   an ordinance or passing a law? At the Inver Grove Heights meeting, one
   person asked the Council how many complaints had been filed regarding
   nuisance properties. The answer was 160. The questioner then asked how
   many private homes were in Inver Grove Heights. The Council and the
   proponents of the ordinance didn't know.
   How many of the complaints referred to the same property? They didn't
   know.
   How many complaints had been filed by the same person? They didn't
   know.
   For the time being, the Council has decided to proceed with a stripped
   down version of the ordinance that regulates junk, open storage,
   woodpiles and similar eyesores but not the outside condition of houses
   and other buildings. It was much less than ordinance proponents were
   hoping for, and the issue is still alive. A second reading of the
   ordinance is scheduled for the next Council meeting on October 8.

References

   1. http://www.twincities.com/localnews/ci_6999305?source=email&nclick_check=1