There is nothing inherently special that would allow the municipality to abrogate private property rights. In Nicely, the court stated that "Nicely cites no authority, and we have found none, that holds that there is something inherently special or privileged about motor vehicles." I agree. I argue that the municipality does not have the authority to pick and choose and it was not the intention of the legislature to grant the municipality the ability to abrogate private property rights. Abandoned vehicles are also included indirectly by the inclusion of a property maintenance code. The legislature explicitly lists abandoned vehicles under the nuisance section. The vehicle itself wasn't an issue, it was the conditions that surround the vehicle that could give rise to a nuisance. Specifically the municipality could not define an automobile a nuisance per se, only a nuisance in fact. 134-0.html the court looked for the intent of the legislature with granting powers to the municipalities and found limits. 4-10.html and said they have the power to regulate the "keeping, parking or storing of unlicensed and unregistered vehicles"Ĭomm. The municipality, rather than making a "nuisance" ordinance, used their power to enact a property maintenance code and relied on the abandoned vehicle section there. I had dealt with this before as a nuisance and that matter has been decided. I was issued a notice of violation about some unlicensed vehicles on my property. Hi, I would like some help with checking my logic in this matter.
0 Comments
Leave a Reply. |
AuthorWrite something about yourself. No need to be fancy, just an overview. ArchivesCategories |