Archive for January 28th, 2009
Congress Seeks To Authorize & Legalize FEMA Camp Facilities
Source: www.roguegovernment.com
By: Lee Rogers
A new bill has been introduced in the U.S. House of Representatives called the National Emergency Centers Act or HR 645. This bill if passed into law will direct the Secretary of Homeland Security to establish national emergency centers otherwise known as FEMA camp facilities on military installations. This is an incredibly disturbing piece of legislation considering that the powers that be have already set in motion an agenda to setup a nationwide marital law apparatus through U.S. Northern Command and the Department of Homeland Security. Apparently, the fusion centers, militarized police, surveillance cameras and a domestic military command is not enough. Even though we already know that detention facilities are already in place, they now want to legalize the construction of FEMA camps on military installations using the ever popular excuse that the facilities are for the purposes of a national emergency. With the phony debt based economy getting worse and worse by the day, the possibility of civil unrest is becoming a greater threat to the establishment. One need only look at Iceland, Greece and other nations for what might happen in the United States next. With this in mind, it appears as if these so called national emergency centers will be used in a national emergency but only if the national emergency requires large groups of people to be rounded up and detained. If that isn’t the case, than why have these national emergency facilities built in military installations?
Let’s look through the various portions of the bill. Here is section 2 of the bill taken directly from the proposed legislation.
(a) In General- In accordance with the requirements of this Act, the Secretary of Homeland Security shall establish not fewer than 6 national emergency centers on military installations.
(b) Purpose of National Emergency Centers- The purpose of a national emergency center shall be to use existing infrastructure–
(1) to provide temporary housing, medical, and humanitarian assistance to individuals and families dislocated due to an emergency or major disaster;
(2) to provide centralized locations for the purposes of training and ensuring the coordination of Federal, State, and local first responders;
(3) to provide centralized locations to improve the coordination of preparedness, response, and recovery efforts of government, private, and not-for-profit entities and faith-based organizations; and
(4) to meet other appropriate needs, as determined by the Secretary of Homeland Security.
The legislation says that the Secretary of Homeland Security shall establish not fewer than 6 national emergency centers on military installations. This means that the Secretary of Homeland Security can setup as many FEMA camps within military installations as they want, it just has to be more than 6 of them. On top of that, it also states that the facilities will be used to meet other appropriate needs as determined by the Secretary of Homeland Security. This could mean anything. If the Secretary of Homeland Security thinks it is appropriate to kill large groups of people like the Nazis did in World War II Germany, than it looks as if this bill would give them the authority to use these facilities for that purpose.
SEC. 3. DESIGNATION OF MILITARY INSTALLATIONS AS NATIONAL EMERGENCY CENTERS.
(a) In General- Not later than 60 days after the date of the enactment of this Act, the Secretary of Homeland Security, in consultation with the Secretary of Defense, shall designate not fewer than 6 military installations as sites for the establishment of national emergency centers.
(b) Minimum Requirements- A site designated as a national emergency center shall be–
(1) capable of meeting for an extended period of time the housing, health, transportation, education, public works, humanitarian and other transition needs of a large number of individuals affected by an emergency or major disaster;
(2) environmentally safe and shall not pose a health risk to individuals who may use the center;
(3) capable of being scaled up or down to accommodate major disaster preparedness and response drills, operations, and procedures;
(4) capable of housing existing permanent structures necessary to meet training and first responders coordination requirements during nondisaster periods;
(5) capable of hosting the infrastructure necessary to rapidly adjust to temporary housing, medical, and humanitarian assistance needs;
(6) required to consist of a complete operations command center, including 2 state-of-the art command and control centers that will comprise a 24/7 operations watch center as follows:
(A) one of the command and control centers shall be in full ready mode; and
(B) the other shall be used daily for training; and
(7) easily accessible at all times and be able to facilitate handicapped and medical facilities, including during an emergency or major disaster.
(c) Location of National Emergency Centers- There shall be established not fewer than one national emergency center in each of the following areas:
(1) The area consisting of Federal Emergency Management Agency Regions I, II, and III.
(2) The area consisting of Federal Emergency Management Agency Region IV.
(3) The area consisting of Federal Emergency Management Agency Regions V and VII.
(4) The area consisting of Federal Emergency Management Agency Region VI.
(5) The area consisting of Federal Emergency Management Agency Regions VIII and X.
(6) The area consisting of Federal Emergency Management Agency Region IX.
(d) Preference for Designation of Closed Military Installations- Wherever possible, the Secretary of Homeland Security, in consultation with the Secretary of Defense, shall designate a closed military installation as a site for a national emergency center. If the Secretaries of Homeland Security and Defense jointly determine that there is not a sufficient number of closed military installations that meet the requirements of subsections (b) and (c), the Secretaries shall jointly designate portions of existing military installations other than closed military installations as national emergency centers.
(e) Transfer of Control of Closed Military Installations- If a closed military installation is designated as a national emergency center, not later than 180 days after the date of designation, the Secretary of Defense shall transfer to the Secretary of Homeland Security administrative jurisdiction over such closed military installation.
(f) Cooperative Agreement for Joint Use of Existing Military Installations- If an existing military installation other than a closed military installation is designated as a national emergency center, not later than 180 days after the date of designation, the Secretary of Homeland Security and the Secretary of Defense shall enter into a cooperative agreement to provide for the establishment of the national emergency center.
(1) PRELIMINARY REPORT- Not later than 90 days after the date of the enactment of this Act, the Secretary of Homeland Security, acting jointly with the Secretary of Defense, shall submit to Congress a report that contains for each designated site–
(A) an outline of the reasons why the site was selected;
(B) an outline of the need to construct, repair, or update any existing infrastructure at the site;
(C) an outline of the need to conduct any necessary environmental clean-up at the site;
(D) an outline of preliminary plans for the transfer of control of the site from the Secretary of Defense to the Secretary of Homeland Security, if necessary under subsection (e); and
(E) an outline of preliminary plans for entering into a cooperative agreement for the establishment of a national emergency center at the site, if necessary under subsection (f).
(2) UPDATE REPORT- Not later than 120 days after the date of the enactment of this Act, the Secretary of Homeland Security, acting jointly with the Secretary of Defense, shall submit to Congress a report that contains for each designated site–
(A) an update on the information contained in the report as required by paragraph (1);
(B) an outline of the progress made toward the transfer of control of the site, if necessary under subsection (e);
(C) an outline of the progress made toward entering a cooperative agreement for the establishment of a national emergency center at the site, if necessary under subsection (f); and
(D) recommendations regarding any authorizations and appropriations that may be necessary to provide for the establishment of a national emergency center at the site.
(3) FINAL REPORT- Not later than 1 year after the date of the enactment of this Act, the Secretary of Homeland Security, acting jointly with the Secretary of Defense, shall submit to Congress a report that contains for each designated site–
(A) finalized information detailing the transfer of control of the site, if necessary under subsection (e);
(B) the finalized cooperative agreement for the establishment of a national emergency center at the site, if necessary under subsection (f); and
(C) any additional information pertinent to the establishment of a national emergency center at the site.
(4) ADDITIONAL REPORTS- The Secretary of Homeland Security, acting jointly with the Secretary of Defense, may submit to Congress additional reports as necessary to provide updates on steps being taken to meet the requirements of this Act.
This section authorizes the Homeland Security Secretary to setup these FEMA camps in closed or open military installations and in regions around the nation. This essentially legalizes any existing FEMA camp infrastructure that has been built in either closed or open military installations and opens the door for additional facilities to be created.
Fortunately, the bill only authorizes $180,000,000 per year for these facilities, but considering that the majority of the detention facilities are probably already built, they won’t need much additional funding. There is no doubt judging from the language of this bill, that it is meant to legalize what they’ve already been doing. After all, FEMA has already been looking at ways to transport large quantities of people to camps, they held a FEMA camp drill which consisted of an illegal alien round up in Iowa and KBR/Halliburtion has already aided in the creation of detention facilities. The rationale behind this legislation is undoubtedly to serve as a mechanism of control if the authorities need facilities to hold large amounts of dissenting people. This is not to help people. One only needs to take a look at what happened during Hurricane Katrina and it is obvious that the government does not care about the people. They didn’t care then, and they don’t care now, and these facilities built or unbuilt will definitely not be utilized for the people’s interest.
Additional information on the FEMA camp situation can be viewed in previous articles written on this subject. Check them out below.
Invention: Sleepy driver sensor
Around 20% of accidents on multi-lane highways are the result of driver fatigue. So the Japanese car maker Toyota has developed a system to rouse drivers before they quite literally drift off completely.
A camera watches the white lines on the road ahead to determine if and how fast the car is veering towards or away from them. An onboard computer then decides whether that kind of manoeuvre is appropriate for the situation. If it is deemed potentially dangerous, the system raises the alarm to wake the driver.
For example, a car regularly crossing white lines while accelerating and braking is likely to be simply driving in city traffic. But wobbling to and fro within a lane, or gradually veering across white lines while moving at a constant high speed may indicate a driver falling asleep on the open highway. If the driver is judged to be losing consciousness, the computer raises an alarm to wake the driver.
Similar systems to warn when white lines are crossed are already available in some cars, but this system should reduce the likelihood of false alarms. Not only can it stay quiet if there is a reason for the manoeuvres being performed, it can wake a driver before a line is actually crossed.
Read the full driver alertness sensor patent application.
Hundreds of bikers lobby lawmakers
Motorcyclists’ top issue is getting their education fund back.
AMERICAN-STATESMAN STAFF
Tuesday, January 27, 2009Motorcyclists from across Texas filled the halls of the Capitol on Monday to talk with lawmakers about preserving bikers’ rights during this legislative session.
“We want to remind legislators that this is our house,” said the chairman of the Texas Motorcycle Rights Association, a statehouse regular who goes only by the name of Sputnik and has “Free” tattooed across his forehead.
Jay Janner/AMERICAN-STATESMAN
Willie Paredez of New Braunfels joined an estimated 2,000 motorcycle riders at the Capitol on Monday. Bikers came from around the state to lobby their representatives about bikers’ issues.
|
Their top concern this year is reinstating a motorcycle education fund. Bikers pay an extra $8 for motorcycle licenses and license renewals, a fee that is supposed to be earmarked for teaching motorcycle safety.
For about four years, the money has been funneled into a general pool instead, and motorcyclists are owed about $8 million for rider training, Sputnik said.
Motorcycle clubs also want tougher penalties against inattentive drivers who collide with pedestrians or bikers and equal access to restaurants and hotels that refuse service to riders decked out in leather vests and patches, he said.
Bikers have to battle a “bad boy” image that leads many to approach them in fear and classify them as gang members, said Lee Stewart of the Southern Cruisers Riding Club in Austin.
This is the eighth time the organization has held a lobby day for bikers to meet their legislators, and event organizers estimated that about 2,000 people rode to the Capitol on a foggy morning to participate.
When the House of Representatives convened in the afternoon, motorcycle-riding Rep. Norma Chavez, D-El Paso, read a resolution honoring the motorcyclists for their cooperative legislative work. Wearing a black leather jacket with her name in an emblem on the back, Chavez counted herself and Gov. Rick Perry among the 887,000 licensed motorcycle riders in Texas.
Some bikers praised Chavez and other legislators for their receptiveness.
Rep. Mark Strama, D-Austin, overcame one stereotype of lawmakers: that they are out of touch with the public. James Merriman, president of the Alternative Motorcycle Club in Waterloo, said Strama and his staff researched proposed legislation so that the lawmaker could talk more knowledgeably about it.
“His response made me feel that by having the courage to come here, there is an open line of communication between us,” he said.
swang@statesman.com; 445-1712
California Appellate Court Publishes Anti-Camera Decision
California appellate court finally publishes decision on red light camera warning periods ignored by California cities.
Cities in California could face a class action lawsuit forcing the refund of thousands of illegally issued red light camera fines following the publication earlier this month of an appellate decision in favor of a local motorist. The California Superior Court’s Appellate Division canceled a photo ticket issued to Orange County resident Thomas Fischetti because the city of Santa Ana failed to provide a thirty-day warning period before issuing tickets at each intersection equipped with a red light camera. Santa Ana, with the support of a trial judge, claimed that it was good enough to have a thirty-day warning period at a single intersection in the city.
“The trial court’s determination that the city complied with Section 21455.5(b) is inconsistent with the structure and purpose of the statute as a whole,” Appellate Division Judge Stephen L. Perk decided. “From the perspective of the motorists for whom the statutory requirements were intended to provide protection, it would not make sense for the geographic scope of the thirty-day warning period to be determined arbitrarily by the size of the municipality operating the automated enforcement system.”
This was not the first time that the courts had decided this issue in Fischetti’s favor. In 2005, the California Supreme Court upheld a previous appellate division decision finding Fischetti not guilty because the city of Costa Mesa, like Santa Ana, failed to provide a thirty-day warning period at each intersection with a red light camera (read opinion). Although final, that decision could not be used as a precedent in California because Fischetti, who represented himself in court, did not realize that courts can withhold publication of decisions, especially when no request for publication was made. Three years later, he would not repeat that mistake.
On February 6, 2008, a red light camera claimed that Fischetti’s 1993 Lexus entered the intersection of Pullman and Dyer in Santa Ana a split-second after the light had turned red. Fischetti called and spoke with Laura Rossini, Deputy City Attorney of Santa Ana, to explain that the city was in violation of the 2005 Fischetti decision. He was shocked at the city’s attitude toward the law.
“She paid little homage to the appellate decision requiring a grace period in my Costa Mesa case,” Fischetti told TheNewspaper. “It was like, despite the logical construction of the opinion, the previous decision was meaningless. At that point I felt I needed to finish what I intended to do in Costa Mesa.”
Even Fischetti with his two victories was not the only individual to win on this question. Both the city of Santa Ana and Court Commissioner Glenn Mondo, who found Fischetti guilty in 2008, had been overturned on this very point. On August 28, 2008, the appellate division entered an identical ruling declaring another motorist’s $366 fine in Santa Ana invalid because of the lack of a warning period. The decision was not published.
The significance of publication is clear from the 2005 pleas of the California League of Cities to overturn the Costa Mesa decision. The League told the state supreme court that the decision, if allowed to stand, meant trouble for the sixty-six California cities that used red light cameras at the time. None of them provided the warning period prescribed by the law.
“The respondent court’s legal interpretation of the statute creates a question of first impression and implicates a factual situation likely to be the subject of persistent litigation in the future by all cities with automated enforcement systems,” Santa Ana’s Assistant City Attorney Paula Coleman wrote on behalf of the League of California Cities in March 2005. “The impact on cities and the courts with respect to ticket appeals and potential refunds could be enormous should respondent court’s analysis be allowed to stand and other courts follow suit.”
The California Supreme Court upheld the 2005 Fischetti decision, the wording of which is substantially identical to the latest ruling which is available in a 1mb PDF file at the source link below.
Source: 
California v. Fischetti (California Superior Court, Appellate Division, 1/15/2009)
http://bainbridgega.com/news/publish/012709nuisance.shtml
Many Issues on Nuisance Ordinance
By
Jan 28, 2009, 01:30
The singling out of motorcycle noise and dust, which would eliminate
Bikefest, was one of a number of concerns voiced by citizens regarding
the first draft of Decatur County’s Nuisance Ordinance.
Roy Reynolds told commissioners “I don’t think you can come up with an
ordinance that interferes with my rights as a property owner in America
that I could support.”
Specific concerns voiced typically followed in the ordinance section
“… are declared to be loud, disturbing, and unnecessary noises that
constitute a public nuisance”
(c) The use of any siren, other than police, fire, ambulance, or
emergency vehicle.
Roy Reynolds stated this would prohibit company and home alarms that
have outside sirens.
Mr Reynolds stated the following line would effectively eliminate
Bikefest.
(j) The use or operation of a motorcycle that creates noise and/or dust
to the level that disturbs persons in the vicinity thereof.
Chairman Rich assured the crowd that they did not want to shut down
Bikefest.
Many citizens questioned why motorcycles would be singled out. Several
stated that 4-wheelers create more noise and destroy more property and
are much more of a nuisance than motorcycles, and yet are not even
addressed in the ordinance.
David Hale voiced a concern for the provision under
Sanitation fee for collection…
(b) The owner(s) of the property which fronts on the right-of-way or
which fronts on the public property involved shall be responsible for
the payment of all such fees.
Mr Hale stated that it holds the property owner responsible even when an
unknown person dumps on the right-of-way. He stated this would create a
problem for his 80 year old mother and 85 year old uncle.
Victor Strickland stated that he owned 21 acres of land on which he has
a personal firing range. He stated he and his children utilize it in
daylight hours. He voiced a concern regarding how vague discharging a
firearm “within an area of the unincorporated portions of the county
which is developed as a residential subdivision or residential
development”. He stated the property next to him was being developed.
The majority of the problems addressed seemed to be the vagueness and
lack of specificity relating to what is too loud, too close etc etc.
County Administrator Tom Patton and Chairman Rich stated that the issues
raised are the reason for the public hearings. They assured the
citizens that all the issues would be very seriously considered.
(Roy Reynolds also submitted to Commissioners a written statement which
has been placed on Talk Bainbridge)
http://bainbridgega.com/decatur/Nuisance-Ord.shtml
Nuisance Ordinance - Decatur County Georgia
Draft Copy (Last Revision Date: January 6, 2009)
Purposes
It is important for a community to appear clean, well kept, and
generally clear of public nuisances, eyesores, and unhealthy conditions.
The appearance of a community weighs heavily in the decisions of
prospective residents and businesses in locating to a particular area. A
clean, safe, and well-kept community can stabilize or increase property
values, provide a healthy environment, and make citizens proud of the
area in which they live. Accordingly, a community needs a set of
regulations to keep the area clean, remove unsightly conditions, and
prevent unhealthy and unsafe situations from occurring. It is therefore
the purpose and intent of this Ordinance to encourage a clean, healthy,
and satisfying environment; one free of nuisances, eyesores, and
unhealthy, unsafe, or devaluating conditions. To this end, this
Ordinance seeks to regulate and protect the health, safety, welfare,
values, and aesthetics of properties.
Definitions
For the purpose of this article, the following words and terms shall
have the meanings respectively ascribed:
Abandoned vehicle: A vehicle, including cars, trucks, trailers, boats,
motorcycles, recreational vehicles, mobile homes, manufactured homes, or
any other similar vehicle, that meets one or more of the following
conditions:
(a) Has been left unattended upon a highway, street, or alley or other
public property outside a designated parking space for a period of 48
hours; and/or
(b) Is within public view and is inoperable, partially or wholly
dismantled, wrecked, junked, discarded, or of similar condition, or any
vehicle without a current license plate if required by law, and is
located outside an enclosed building, garage, carport, wrecked motor
vehicle compound, or other place of business designated and lawfully
used for the storage of such inoperable vehicles, for a period exceeding
30 days.
Dilapidate: To cause or allow (a structure, automobile, etc.) to fall
into a state of despair, as by misuse or neglect (often used passively).
Enforcement: The provisions of this article shall be administered and
enforced by the Code
Enforcement Officer or Chief Building Inspector, under supervision of
the Planning Director or his authorized designees. The provisions of
this article shall be in consistency with O.C.G.A. § 41-1-7, which
exempts agricultural, forest lands and facilities, from certain
provisions of this ordinance.
Kennels: Facility for the boarding (overnight) of domestic animals,
limited to five or more dogs and cats four months of age or older.
Breeding and training of dogs and cats and the sale to the public of
puppies and kittens are classified as kennel activities.
Nuisance: Anything that causes hurt, inconvenience, or damage to
another, and the fact that the act done may otherwise be lawful, shall
not keep it from being a nuisance. The inconvenience complained of shall
not be fanciful, or such as would affect only one of fastidious taste,
but it shall be such as would affect general public.
Public or Private Property: Means the right-of-way of any public road or
street, any property owned or operated by Decatur County; any public
playground, body of water or watercourse, recreation area; residential
or farm property; or any other property not designated or approved by
state or county authority as a landfill.
Illustrative Examples Of Nuisances
The following conditions, whether on occupied or unoccupied lands,
public or private property, are hereby declared to be and constitute a
public nuisance and shall be abated; this section shall not be construed
to be limiting with regard to its enumeration of public nuisances.
(a) On residential properties, weeds or grass allowed to grow to a
height greater than 12 inches on the average, or any accumulation of
dead weeds, grass, or brush, that may provide safe harborage for rats,
mice, snakes and/or other vermin on property of less than five acres for
which the primary use is not agriculture.
(b) Vegetation that obstructs the safe passage or line-of-sight of
motorists or pedestrians at an intersection or driveway connection with
a public or private street or alley, or along any street or sidewalk.
(c) On residential properties, dead or dying trees or other vegetation
which may cause a hazardous situation if they fall, except for
commercial, agricultural, and forest lands.
(d) Accumulation of rubbish, trash, refuse, junk, construction debris,
and other abandoned materials, metals, appliances, tires, furniture,
lumber, or other such items.
(e) The keeping or maintenance of one or more abandoned vehicles in
public view or in a manner inconsistent with this Ordinance.
(f) The carcasses of animals or fowl not disposed of within a reasonable
time after death.
(g) Any building or other structure which is in such a dilapidated
condition that it is unfit for human habitation, or kept in such an
unsanitary condition that it is a menace to the health of people
residing in the vicinity thereof, or presents a fire hazard, except
buildings or structures on farms within the minimum setback area of 100
Feet from a residential property.
(h) All noises which may annoy or inhibit others in their enjoyment of
the use of their property, except the noises from existing agricultural
lands.
(i) All disagreeable or obnoxious odors or stenches, as well as the
conditions, substances or other causes which give rise to the emission
or generation of such odors and stenches, including smoke and fires,
except the odors from existing agricultural lands.
(j) The pollution of any public well, stream, lake, canal, or body of
water by sewage, dead animals, dairy waste, industrial wastes,
agricultural wastes, or other substances.
(k) Any building, structure, or other place or location where any
activity is conducted, performed or maintained in violation of local,
state, or federal law.
(l) Any method of human excretion disposal which does not conform to the
provisions of local ordinances, or state or federal law.
Nuisance Prohibited
It shall be unlawful for any person, firm, corporation or other entity
to cause, permit, maintain, or allow the creation or maintenance of a
nuisance, as defined or more specifically described in this Ordinance.
Notice To Abate
Whenever a nuisance is found to exist within the jurisdiction of Decatur
County, the Code Enforcement Officer shall give written notice to the
owner or occupant of the property upon which such a nuisance exists or
upon the person causing or maintaining the nuisance, to abate the
nuisance.
Contents Of Notice
The notice to abate a nuisance issued under the provisions of this
Ordinance shall contain the following:
(a) An order to abate the nuisance or to request a hearing within a
stated time, which shall be reasonable under the circumstances;
(b) The location of the nuisance, if the nuisance is stationary;
(c) A description of what constitutes the nuisance;
(d) A statement of acts necessary to abate the nuisance; and
(e) A statement that if the nuisance is not abated as directed, the
County will file an action in Magistrate Court to abate the nuisance.
Appeals
A notice issued by the Code Enforcement Officer may be appealed within
ten (10) days from the date of receiving, and the appeal shall be taken
to the Decatur County Magistrate Court.
Provisions For Specific Nuisances
Animals. Policies pertinent to animal nuisances are included in the
Animal Control Ordinance, adopted by the Decatur County Board of
Commissioners on October 14, 2008.
Abandoned Vehicles. It shall be unlawful to keep or maintain an
abandoned vehicle as defined by this Ordinance, and any abandoned
vehicle is hereby declared to be a public nuisance and shall be abated
as provided in this Ordinance.
Trees and Other Vegetation. It shall be unlawful for the owner or
occupant of any lot or land lying and abutting on an intersection of two
roads or streets or the intersection of a driveway and a street to allow
any trees, shrubs, or bushes lying on said lot or land to grow to a
height or in a manner which restricts the line of sight, or which
threatens safety or restricts passage of motorists or pedestrians within
a public right-of-way or sidewalk.
Noise. It shall be unlawful for any person to create or assist in
creating, permit, or continue any unreasonably loud, disturbing, or
unnecessary noise in Decatur County. Noise of such character, intensity,
and duration that is detrimental to the reasonable comfort, health, or
life of any individual is prohibited.
The following acts, among others, are declared to be loud, disturbing,
and unnecessary noises that constitute a public nuisance in violation of
this Ordinance, and which shall be abated.
(a) The keeping or maintenance of any domestic animal which, due to
prolonged or habitual barking, howling, whining, or other noises, causes
annoyance to neighboring residents, or interferes with the reasonable
use and enjoyment of the premises occupied by such residents, is hereby
declared to be a public nuisance and shall be abated as provided in this
Ordinance, if the animal is closer than 500 Feet from the property line
adjoining residential property.
(b) The sounding of any bell, horn, whistle, mechanical device operated
by compressed air, or signal device while not in motion, except as a
danger signal, for an unnecessary and unreasonable period of time.
(c) The use of any siren, other than police, fire, ambulance, or
emergency vehicle.
(d) The use or operation of any musical instrument, radio, loud speaker,
or sound amplifying device so loudly as to disturb persons in the
vicinity thereof.
(e) The erection, excavation, demolition, alteration, or repair of any
building or structure in the vicinity of residential dwellings between
the hours of 10:00 p.m. and 7:00 a.m., except in the case of urgent
necessity in the interest of public safety, and then only with a permit
from the Code Enforcement Officer, or his designee.
(f) The creation of excessive noise on any street adjacent to any
institution of learning, court or religious congregation while the same
are in session, or within 150 feet of a hospital which unreasonably
interferes with the working of such institution.
(g) The shouting or crying of peddlers, vendors, or residents which
disturbs the peace and quiet of a residential area.
(h) The unnecessary creation of loud or excessive noise in connection
with unloading or loading vehicles or merchandise.
(i) The use of any vehicle that is in a state of disrepair as to create
loud or unnecessary grinding, rattling, backfiring, or other noise.
(j) The use or operation of a motorcycle that creates noise and/or dust
to the level that disturbs persons in the vicinity thereof.
Any one of these enumerated nuisances, if violated, would be a
misdemeanor and could be prosecuted in the Magistrate Court of Decatur
County just as the violation of any other ordinances.
Litter. Whenever any litter, which is dumped, deposited, thrown or left
on public or private property or in a recycling facility in violation of
this ordinance or of the rules and regulations promulgated by the
Decatur County Board of Commissioners under this ordinance, is
discovered to contain any article or articles, including, but not
limited to, letters, bills, publications or other writings which display
the name of a person thereon in such a manner as to indicate that the
article belongs or belonged to such person, it shall be a rebuttable
presumption that such person has violated this article.
Enforcement of littering shall be consistent with O.C.G.A. §
40-6-248.1(d), when organic debris is being transported from farm or
field to storage, or from storage to feedlot.
Prima Facie Case. Whenever litter is thrown, deposited, dropped or
dumped from any motor vehicle, boat, airplane, trailer, wagon,
wheelbarrow or other conveyance in violation of this ordinance or the
rules and regulations promulgated by the Decatur County Board of
Commissioners under this ordinance, it shall be prima facie evidence
that the operator of the conveyance has violated this ordinance.
(a) It shall be unlawful for any person to burn or attempt to burn or
cause to be burned any material of any nature in any container belonging
to or used by the County for residential solid waste collection
purposes.
(b) It shall be unlawful for any person to dump or bury or cause to bury
or cause to be dumped or buried any garbage, refuse or rubbish anywhere
in the unincorporated areas of Decatur County, other than in the manned
disposal site provided.
(c) It shall be unlawful to burn or cause to be burned any garbage,
refuse, rubbish or paper in a barrel anywhere in the unincorporated area
of Decatur County.
Discharging of firearms within residential subdivisions and
developments, and within a certain proximity to a residence.
(a) It shall be unlawful for any person to use, discharge, or shoot any
firearm, handgun, pistol, rifle, shotgun, or an air rifle which projects
with a velocity of greater than 500 feet per second, within an area of
the unincorporated portions of the county which is developed as a
residential subdivision or residential development, or within 200 linear
feet of a residence located in the unincorporated portion of the county,
except in defense of personal property as otherwise authorized by the
general law of this state, or after obtaining a written permit from the
sheriff, or his designee.
(b) This section shall not apply to certified peace officers while in
the course of their employment as peace officers on duty.
(c) A person committing a violation of this section shall, upon
conviction, be punished as provided by Magistrate Court of Decatur
County.
Penalty Provisions
(a) Violations which are Misdemeanors. It shall be unlawful for any
person to violate any provisions or fail to comply with any of the
requirements of the Code. Any person violating any of the provisions or
failing to comply with any of the mandatory requirements of the Code
shall be guilty of a misdemeanor, unless such violation is otherwise in
the Code as an infraction. Any person convicted of a misdemeanor under
the provisions of the Code shall be punishable by a fine of not more
than one thousand dollars ($1,000.00). Each such person shall be guilty
of a separate offense for each day during any portion of which any
violation of any provision of the Ordinance is committed, continued, or
permitted by such person and shall be punishable accordingly.
(b) Public Nuisances. In addition to the penalties hereinabove provided,
any condition caused or permitted to exist in violation of any of the
provisions of the Ordinance shall be deemed a public nuisance and may be
summarily abated as such by the County, and each day such condition
continues shall be regarded as a new and separate offense.
(c) Infractions. Any violation of this ordinance deemed to be an
infraction shall be punishable by:
1. A fine not exceeding one hundred dollars ($100.00) for a first
violation;
2. A fine not exceeding two hundred dollars ($200.00) for a second
violation of the same provision of the Ordinance within one (1) year;
3. A fine not exceeding five hundred dollars ($500.00) for each
additional violation of the same provision of the Ordinance within one
(1) year.
A violation of misdemeanor may be changed to infraction, if citation is
paid, by decision of Magistrate Court.
Any ordinance passed by the Decatur County Commission, after approval of
this ordinance, which does not specify that its violation constitutes a
misdemeanor shall constitute an infraction as provided in this section.
(d) Included Offenses. Whenever in the Ordinance any act or omission is
made unlawful, it shall include causing, permitting, aiding, abetting,
suffering, or concealing the fact or such act of omission.
Sanitation fee for collection and removal of trash and/or articles of
personal property from the right-of-way and/or public property:
(a) Any owner(s) of real property who causes trash and/or abandoned
articles of personal property to be deposited in the right-of-way and/or
on public property which results in Decatur County being required to
remove such trash and/or personal property shall be charged the
following sanitation fees:
(1) Fifty dollars ($50.00) for the removal of the first item of trash
and/or abandoned article of personal property; and
(2) An additional one hundred dollars ($100) for each pick-up truck load
of such trash and/or abandoned articles of personal property removed
after the first pick-up truck load.
(b) The owner(s) of the property which fronts on the right-of-way or
which fronts on the public property involved shall be responsible for
the payment of all such fees. Payment shall be due within thirty (30)
days of the removal of the trash and/or abandoned articles of personal
property.
(c) Should any sanitation fee imposed by this section not be paid within
the thirty (30) day time period set forth in subparagraph (b) above, the
person, firm, or corporation liable for the fee shall be subject to and
shall pay interest charges of ten (10) percent per month for each month
or portion thereof in which the same remains unpaid.
(d) In addition to any other remedies provided by law for the collection
of the sanitation fee set forth in this section, the officer charged
with the collection of the fee shall be authorized to issue executions
against the delinquent property owner(s) for the amount of the fees due,
plus accrued interest. Such executions shall constitute a lawful lien
against the real property of the property owner(s).
(e) At any time within two (2) years after any sanitation fee imposed
under this section becomes overdue and/or delinquent, the Board of
Commissioners of Decatur County may bring an action in a court of
competent jurisdiction in the name of Decatur County against the person,
firm, or corporation liable for the fee to collect the amount
delinquent, together with interest, court fees, filing fees, attorney’s
fees and other legal fees incident thereto.
(f) In addition to the remedies for the collection of the sanitation fee
imposed herein, a civil penalty may be imposed of up to five hundred
dollars ($500.00) for any failure to pay the sanitation fee established
by this section. This civil penalty may be imposed by any court of
competent jurisdiction over the enforcement of the ordinances of Decatur
County, Georgia. Such civil penalty may be enforced by the contempt
power of the court. Health Code. Any nuisance, violation, infraction, or
inconsistency with any of the provisions of Health Department, Health
and Safety, Health Code, and General Hazards or violating any provision
of any permit, license or exception granted thereunder or failing to
comply with any of the requirements thereof shall be processed in
accordance with O.C.G.A. § 31-12-8 by Decatur County Environmental
Health Department.
Code Enforcement Program & Citation
The steps listed below identify the procedure used to carry out the
goals of this program primarily directed toward the elimination of
aesthetic and safety violations.
Step 1
The first step in this process is when a violation of codes is perceived
and a complaint is filed. Once the complaint is found to become a
potential code issue, the Code Enforcement Officer will inspect the
premises and determine if the issue warrants follow up.
Step 2
A code enforcement action begins when the Code Enforcement Officer
identifies a violation of County regulations. The person or persons
responsible for causing the violation are notified of the problem. This
notice will include the nature of the violation and the date when the
violation should be corrected. The immediacy of the corrective action
will depend on the significance of the violation, upon the Code
Enforcement Officer’s judgment.
Step 3
If the County cannot gain compliance through cooperative efforts and
negotiation, a Citation may be issued requiring the property owner/user
to appear in court. A citation also may be issued if the County receives
two complaints from two different complainers for violating the same
provision of this ordinance without following Step 1 and Step 2. Land
use cases are normally heard in the Decatur County Magistrate Court on
the first Wednesday of each month. After hearing the testimony and
reviewing the evidence, the court will issue a verdict of: “not guilty”
termination of the action or “guilty” resulting in a sentence. The
sentence always will include compliance, possibly a fine, and court
costs.
In summary,
this process has been developed not only to furnish the County a means
to obtain code compliance, but to protect the rights of anyone
identified as being in violation of a County code, as well. For further
information regarding code enforcement, or to report an issue for review
by the Code Enforcement Officer, please contact the Planning Department
at: (229)248-3018.
goldiron