Liberty in Sacramento

City Permits: Gone Too Far?

2010-10-13T06:22:58Z

Like any city, Sacramento develops a collection of codes to be enforced. To engage in certain activities, residents and businesses must contact departments, fill out forms, and apply for permits.

It seems constantly, the City is conjuring new codes, guidelines, and permits... everything from medical marijuana moratoriums to taxi cab queues. You need a permit to install an alarm system. To sell produce. To put certain signs on your property. To sell secondhand goods. To hold a fundraiser. To offer massage. To open a miniature golf course. To sell hot dogs on the street. To offer valet parking. To figure model. You need a permit to prune a tree in front of your house, or to prevent it's roots from destroying your sidewalk. You then need a permit to repair your sidewalk at your own expense (even if city rejected your permit to avoid the damage). You need a permit to update an older home, with approval of the Historic Preservation Committee. Then, of course, there is the maze of permits any developer or home-builder must traverse via the Community Development Department, which a recent audit has exposed to be poorly organized (and ask any developer, a painful process). Many of these permits come with application fees, hours of form filling and phone tag with city officials, and no guarantee that your permit will be approved.

Much of the language within the city codes are vague and subjective, leaving residents guessing how their permit will be evaluated or whether any process exists at all. For example, this excerpt from Urban Forestry's code on tree removal permits which require $50 fee to be subjected to the "directors sole discretion":

12.56.070 Maintenance and removal permits., #3
The director, in his or her sole discretion, has determined that any potential detriment to the city street tree population entailed by the proposed work, is justified in the individual case. In making this determination, the director shall consider factors such as the probability that the proposed work will destroy or seriously injure the tree, the tree’s health, the desirability of that species as a street tree, whether the tree’s condition and size threaten serious damage to property, the condition and number of other city street trees in the vicinity, whether there are other less onerous means of accomplishing the applicant’s goals, and other related criteria.

A recent agenda item from a City Council meeting demonstrates how absurd permits can seem when they go too far - where Happy Happy restaurant was cited by city police for not having an "Entertainment Permit". The reason? They were singing inside the restaurant, and their permit application had been rejected.

City Council votes to challenge 2nd Amendment

2009-12-16T04:28:49Z

Today, December 15th, is Bill of Rights Day. These 10 amendments to the Constitution protect our most basic rights, including: freedom of speech, religion, the right to bear arms, and have a fair trial. Ironically, in this evening's Sacramento City Council meeting our representatives voted to support Chicago in a Supreme Court Case (McDonald v. Chicago) which would allow cities to ignore the 2nd Amendment.

The 2nd Amendment reads:
"A well regulated militia, being necessary to the security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms, shall not be infringed."

The City Council Proposal
"Discuss and consider whether to authorize the City Attorney's Office to take the necessary steps to have the City of Sacramento join as amicus curiae with various cities in McDonald v. Chicago, United States Supreme Court Case no. 08-1521, in support of the position that the Second Amendment to the United States Constitution does not apply to the States and local governments. Contact: Eileen Teichert, City Attorney, (916) 808-5346, Office of the City Attorney."

This proposal was brought forward at the request of Kevin McCarty. After he introduced the item, councilmember Robbie Waters made a statement strongly opposing the proposal. There were three public speakers from the community, all opposing the proposal. After the public comments, Steve Cohn made comments supporting it. It then passed with a majority vote.

After 12/16, you can watch archived video of this decision here: 12/15, agenda item #28.

Board of Supervisors Outlaw Lap Dances

2009-03-27T03:28:31Z

This past Tuesday, March 24th, the Sacramento Board of Supervisors adopted ordinance SCC-1419 "Ordinance Related to Physical Contact Dance", proposed by the Sheriff. The Supervisors, Don Nottoli, Susan Peters, Roger Dickinson, Jimmie Yee (Roberta MacGlashan was absent), voted "yes" unanimously.

The new rules:
No patron shall be permitted within six feet of the stage while the stage is occupied by entertainer(s). No entertainer shall perform within six feet of a patron or customer. No entertainer shall have physical contact with any patron or customer and no patron or customer shall have physical contact with any entertainer. If patrons wish to tip entertainers, tips shall be placed in receptacles which shall be located at least six feet from the entertainer and performing areas. Every person who violates any provision of this chapter, including customers and patrons, entertainers, and operators of the establishments, is guilty of a misdemeanor.

Of the documents attached to the ordinance, what stood out to me immediately is that much of the text submitted by the sheriff describes dancers "disrobing" or observing "pornographic activities", while there is no evidence submitted that lap dances cause criminal activity of any kind. In fact, the only support of the sheriff's claims are documents from some town, La Habra, where their prudish City Council proclaimed that lap dances led to AIDS, violence, and other "deleterious effects"... though no facts where stated there either. Of these eight documents, there is only one letter from a local resident in opposition. I sent a letter to the supervisors myself defending free-enterprise and individual liberty, but where is this in the documents and why is there selective inclusion of opinions on the matter? From what I've read on this, it appears that the Sheriff is acting on behalf of religious elements in proximity to two dancing establishments on Auburn Blvd. The fact is, most of these girls are probably single moms trying to make a buck and perhaps a few of them will resort to prostitution because of this ordinance. Personally, I am settled down and my days of visiting a strip club were over after my bachelor party. However, what I find objectionable is not two consenting adults exchanging $20 for boobs-in-face... but rather a few elected officials feeling they have the right to regulate personal, consensual, and non-criminal transaction between free people simply because they find it distasteful. Obviously, based on the responses on this petition, I am not the only person who feels this way.

I sincerely hope that Sacramentans who value their personal liberty will vote these supervisors out of their seats come next election. I also hope that these establishments fight for their constitutional rights in court.