A.G. Gancarski
Monday’s meeting of City Councils Neighborhood Improvement and Enhancement Committee was to be highlighted by subcommittee presentations about the persistent issues of vehicle requirements and backing cars into driveways.
However, the real highlight ended up being a committee inquiry into federal law, overly restrictive FCC guidelines relative to robocalls, and a potential lawsuit against Google for allowing snipe sign scofflaws use of their telephony service for nefarious ends.
The meeting began with Councilman John Crescimbeni pointing out the progress of the snipe signs legislation through the Finance Committee earlier in the day.
“It looks like we’re moving forward,” Crescimbeni said.
A discussion of using robocalls to target scofflaws, discussed previously, proved a nonstarter The Federal Communications Commission objected to that idea on a number of grounds. The General Counsel’s office recommended robocalls not be used because of a “high exposure” of litigation, and potential FCC fines of up to $500 per call.
Federal prerogative apparently trumps the will of the Jacksonville City Council.
Posting numbers to signs, regrettably, does not equate to “implied consent” for robocalls, to the consternation of Councilmen Crescimbeni and Bill Gulliford.
Crescimbeni wondered, then, if “implied consent” could be made part of the ordinance code. He expressed surprise that the FCC would stand against this, and sought “creative lawyering … to facilitate where we want to go.”
Gulliford then suggested that it’s “contradictory … that the Feds would suggest that we can’t enforce our laws by any means necessary,” before wondering whether the city could “attack” via Google, which is “participating in breaking our laws.”
“Let’s file suit against Google. That would make national headlines,” said Gulliford, who urged that council “get more aggressive if we can.”
From there, the discussion pivoted to an investigation of a telephone number and address associated with an I Buy Houses sign. Apparently, Code Enforcement couldn’t prove the connection between two companies with the same address.
That caused consternation to council members.
“I’m perplexed,” Crescimbeni said. “I really thought that would be a very high priority item for Municipal Code upon leaving here” two weeks ago.
Councilman Tommy Hazouri observed that looking up the corporation “shouldn’t be something very difficult for anybody in your office.”
“There’s no rhyme or reason” he said regarding the failure of Code Enforcement to do “due diligence.”
“It’s like hunting something in the woods … at some point you’re going to catch them,” but it won’t happen, Hazouri said, “if you wait two weeks.”
“We need to hammer these people any way we can,” said Gulliford, including targeting scofflaws on “occupational license” grounds.
Dennis then voiced his “frustration” about the difficulty of enforcing laws. Three weeks hence, at the next meeting of this group, Code Enforcement will have better answers.
After that extended exchange, the discussion of subcommittee reports regarding Vehicle Requirements and Backing Cars into Driveways seemed anti-climactic.
Councilman Reggie Brown emphasized that legislation on this front would be “complaint driven,” and that such laws would target those who “circumvented the law” by storing junk vehicles in plain sight of neighbors indefinitely.
“This is a mechanism to clean up the city,” Brown said, “and to combat those who think they’ve found a way to beat us.”
Enforcement was a point of discussion in this part of the discussion.
After an extended discourse from Blight director Denise Lee, Councilman Hazouri observed that her comments were getting in the way of council’s ability to discuss the issue.
After even more discussion, Gulliford mercifully attempted to put the brakes on the car discussion, saying that it wasn’t “ready for prime time” and needed further work.
The matter was tabled to the next meeting. Much like Stephen King‘s Christine, the car bills just won’t die.
