by William Skink
I am feeling seriously triggered by both the University of Montana and City Council. I think that’s the right word, considering it’s dealing with past traumas that seem to be repeating.
Bringing back Bobby is brilliant if the idea is to create a different PR problem to distract from a plethora of other bad moves, like trying to hide information on the prioritization process and firing/hiring/firing/hiring contracted lecturers. Poor Seth, this shit-show is now his to try and deal with. He may want to check the Missoula County Inmate Informational Portal every morning, especially weekends. It would have to be early, before those fancy lawyers can spring ’em out.
For more frequent posts on the ineptitude of UM and the terrible reign of King Clayton, Logicosity has been great. I’m listening, Ed! I care!
Bringing back Bobby Hauck is not the only throw-back, dumb-ass move by a critical institution of Missoula. Missoula’s City Council is re-visiting trying to ordinance away a nuisance issue, this time “urban camping” by people in unsightly RVs.
Is this a pervasive problem? Or are a few, persistent violators confounding police and health department officials? From the link:
Mike Haynes, director of Development Services, said the regulatory change came after health and law enforcement officials and the city attorney’s office struggled to deal with several long-term campers who caused sanitation issues and safety concerns.
In a memo to the City Council, Haynes explained: “Temporary and occasional cases of ‘urban camping’ rarely generate complaints, but there have been cases where individuals have parked in neighborhoods for long periods of time, presented significant problems for residents, and generated citizen nuisance complaints that have required code enforcement and law enforcement interventions.”
In one case, a couple camped for nearly two years in various Missoula neighborhoods, resisting all attempts at enforcement by moving whenever neighbors began to complain.
According to Haynes, this is not a pervasive problem. “Several” is a pretty low occurrence rate to warrant passing an ordinance. But that’s what Missoula has done under Engen, and will continue to do, apparently. Hey, people keep voting for him, so I guess this is what “progressive” Missoula wants.
Does Engen support these changes to the ban on urban camping? How does this fit into the housing initiative Engen constantly referenced as he was campaigning? I’d like to know. I would also like to know how, specifically, would these changes address the “several” cases police and city officials can’t apparently handle. If they can’t afford the fine, and don’t show up to Municipal court, is this just another “failure to appear” that could land a violator in the debtors jail on Mullan Road?
The city of Missoula and UM, acting like the it’s the aughts with ordinances and Bobby Hauck. What’s next, pretending like Jon Tester will be a foe to wars and a friend to enviros like it’s 2006?