It is one thing to have the city attorney craft and offer an ambiguous and flawed ordinance, but the city councilmen have a duty to have such proposals explained to them in detail as to how it works and its implications from several viewpoints (political, financial, legal, enforcement, equity and fairness) before passage.
Where is there a provision for an objective and competent legal review, including opposing arguments, of the output from the city attorney’s office that would avoid such unintended consequences? Public discussion opportunities during council meetings do not fill this void, mostly because the councilmen ignore most public input anyway. Instead, our City Council operates using broad concepts but does not try to match that against actual proposed legislation.
It would seem reasonable that with five minds (properly engaged and paying attention) on the City Council, at least one of them would think about the consequences of their actions and the methodology for vetting proposed legislation. Alas, no such luck. Citizens of Glendale need and deserve better performance from their city government than group thinking.
The very premise of the ordinance as stated in it is ridiculous: “.?.?. Such oaks and sycamores are unique because of their size and beauty and their relative abundance adds distinction and character to certain neighborhoods within the community.” This one sentence alone is flawed with contradictions and ambiguity, defying common sense. First, that oaks and sycamores are unique because of their “size and beauty” is nothing more than an opinion, not a fact. Many other tree species are large and beautiful (pines and eucalyptus, for example), so oaks and sycamores are therefore not unique.
