Sometimes its seems that municipalities get so caught up with their own private language of ordinances, variances, precedents and procedures that they tend to forget who they are really serving as council members.
Los Gatos and Monte Sereno are facing two separate issues where the councils appears to be paying more attention to precedents and ordinances than they are to the voices of the people they serve.
In Los Gatos, it all has to do with one man's desire to retain canopies that he erected in his driveway to protect his cars from errant golf balls flying over the fence of a driving range across the street. In Monte Sereno, it's all about one man's holiday display.
The Los Gatos Town Council voted 4-1 last week to require Wedgewood Avenue resident Mark Medalie to take down the canopies covering the cars in his driveway. The reason: the structures are illegal because they violate the required setback.
The council ruling came despite wide support for Medalie from his neighbors. But the council determined that it would set a dangerous precedent if the illegal structures were allowed to remain.
So if the neighborhood has no problem with the canopies in Medalie's driveway, and if the canopies are in fact serving a purpose by protecting Medalie's vehicles from potential harm, doesn't it seem like common sense to allow them to remain?
Four members of the town council didn't think so and voted that the structures must come down. Only Mike Wasserman cast a dissenting vote. He found the application to be "unique" and didn't agree with his colleagues that allowing the canopies to remain would set a precedent.
Monte Sereno faces a similar decision on Oct. 21. The council will consider an ordinance to limit special events in the city. The ordinance will go before the council for a first reading next Tuesday.
It's called a special events ordinance, but as we've said before it's clearly the "Alan Aerts Ordinance," targeting one person's desire to construct a holiday display—granted, a very extensive holiday display—at his Danielle Place residence.
Vice Mayor Erin Garner has been a longtime supporter of Aerts and his decorations, and Mayor David Baxter has recently decided to oppose the proposed ordinance. But council members Barbara Nesbet, Curtis Wright and Mark Brodsky continue to favor the addition of the proposal.
While we call it the Aerts Ordinance, the city counters that the proposed addition to the city codes does not singularly target Aerts' holiday display but that it is meant to regulate all special events in the city. Still, when asked what other events would or could be impacted, City Manager Brian Loventhal could only cite the annual Great Race and events like the 1994 visit by the Brazilian World Cup soccer team. Such events hardly seem worthy of a new city ordinance.
Public opinion is clearly on Aerts' side in this controversy. And isn't it about time that council members cast their votes in a way to reflect the will of the people? Wasserman did, but he lost to that private world of ordinances, variances and precedents.
