My WebLink
|
Help
|
About
|
Sign Out
Home
COM 0401.005 1996-1998
ClerkCouncil
>
Council Records
>
Communications
>
1996-1998
>
COM 0401.005 1996-1998
Metadata
Thumbnails
Annotations
Entry Properties
Last modified
5/13/2008 11:27:47 AM
Creation date
5/10/2008 7:54:40 PM
Metadata
Fields
Template:
Communications
Communications - Type
COM
Communications - Council Term
1996-1998
Communication
0401
Point
005
Author
Richard D. Wurdeman, Corporation Counsel
Communications - Referred To
PWPC
Comments
PWIRC: Close file - 2/1/05 Presented: PWPC - 8/4/97
Communications - File Code
ADV
Document Relationships
AGE PWIRC 02/01/2005 2004-2006
(Related)
Path:
\Council Records\Agendas\2004-2006\Public Works & Intergovernmental Relations Committee (PWIRC)
COM 0045.000 2004-2006
(Related)
Path:
\Council Records\Communications\2004-2006
COM 0401.000 1996-1998
(Related)
Path:
\Council Records\Communications\1996-1998
There are no annotations on this page.
Document management portal powered by Laserfiche WebLink 9 © 1998-2015
Laserfiche.
All rights reserved.
/
3
PDF
Print
Pages to print
Enter page numbers and/or page ranges separated by commas. For example, 1,3,5-12.
After downloading, print the document using a PDF reader (e.g. Adobe Reader).
View images
View plain text
Dominic Yagong, Ch <br /> 31 July 1997 <br /> Page 3 <br /> In Fav's Incorporated v. New York State Department of Health, <br /> 645 NYS 2d. 995 (Misc 1996), where enforcement of the <br /> prohibition of the sale of tobacco products to minors relied <br /> wholly on complaints lodged by an anti-smoking activist group, <br /> the court went even further, finding that, no matter how <br /> praiseworthy the intention, an impermissible delegation of <br /> govermental authority had occurred. <br /> A contrary result was reached in Provo v. Hansen, 585 P.2d. 461 <br /> (Ut 1978), a case involving an injunction from housing more than <br /> the permitted number of students in one dwelling. Even there, <br /> however, a dissent by the Chief Justice strongly criticized the <br /> practice of permitting known violations unless the neighbors <br /> object. I i at 463. In any event, this case, as it involves <br /> conduct not readily visible to the passerby, is plainly <br /> distinguishable. As pointed out by the Court in Klein (supra at <br /> 790), some cases are impracticable to enforce by government <br /> initiation. Where, however, as in sign violations, the alleged <br /> violation is "open and notorious, it is the obligation of the <br /> legally instituted enforcing body to establish some adequate <br /> method to ensure that the guarantee of equal protection under <br /> the law...is met." Ibid at 791. <br /> To summarize, while I do not believe that the applicant has <br /> established the case for discrimination in enforcement of the <br /> sign ordinance, the present reported practice of responding only <br /> to complaints is fraught with danger. Should the requested <br /> variance be denied, it is strongly recommended that enforcement <br /> be undertaken against the other violators in the area, some of <br /> which are named by the applicant. To close our eyes to the <br /> obvious, and proceed against only one of a known group of <br /> violators, merely because someone complained, is "an unseemingly <br /> state of affairs openly inviting discrimination and harassment <br /> of one group by another". People v. Acme Markets, 334 NE 2d <br /> 555, 558 (NY 1975). <br /> Sincerely, <br /> <br /> ~KICHARD D. WURDE N: <br /> Corporation Cowl`s <br /> RDW:1679Lbre <br /> <br />
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.