Print this story | E-mail story | This story has 23 comments Add your own | iPod friendly
Junk car ordinance welcomed
Published Friday, June 6, 2008
You’ve seen the eyesores. It’s hard to miss a junkyard serving as eye pollution to our beautiful lakes country.
We support the Otter Tail County Board getting tough on junk cars and other salvage with a tougher nuisance ordinance. It’s about time.
Under a preliminary proposal before the county board, a license would be required in order to keep more than five junk vehicles on a property.
A junk car is considered any motor vehicle not in operable condition or properly licensed for operation. It’s also one that is partially dismantled and used as a source of replacement parts for other vehicles — or kept for scrapping, dismantling or salvage of any kind.
We argue, however, that unless one operates a salvage yard, allowing five junk vehicles on a property doesn’t go far enough.
At the end of the month, as well as in early July, the county board will take its proposal on the road. The board will hold informational meetings where members can gather information and hear from the county’s public.
We believe more should be done to protect the beauty of Otter Tail County and its lakes. A nuissance ordinance is one step in the right direction.
Comments
The Daily Journal is happy to host community conversations about news and life in Fergus Falls and the surrounding area. As hosts, we expect guests will show respect for each other. That means we don't threaten or defame each other, and we keep conversations free of personal attacks. Witty is great. Abusive is not. If you think a post violates these standards, don't escalate the situation. Instead, flag the comment to alert us. We'll take action if necessary. It's not hard. This should be a place where people want to read and contribute -- a place for spirited exchanges of opinion. So those who persist with racist, defamatory or abusive postings risk losing the privilege to post at all.Posted by werty (anonymous) on June 6, 2008 at 12:21 p.m. (Suggest removal)
They idea of cleaning up obvious eye sores is novel and I dislike looking at junk as much as the next person. However, focusing on on "junk cars" as mentioned in the article needs some work...and who is to enforce and verify that vehicles are not considered operable? I can think of many farm yards with at least 5 vehicles sitting not current on licensing, or not operable, partially dismantled, etc... And what about old farm machinery, scrap metal, etc... This county wide in a farming area... and I would say that if it's passed and enforced the county is not going to be prepared for all of the complaints and calls from people who have been waiting for years to complain about farmer Joe's scrapyard. What are they going to do...just send a fine? or send the police out to look at licensing and have them start the vehicle and drive it to ensure it's operable? What if the car is missing a blinker?...Is it considered dismantled? The Visual Chaos commitee should have the ordinace down to a science before it's passed and not one of those open to interpretation ordinances.
Posted by Hmmm (anonymous) on June 6, 2008 at 1:31 p.m. (Suggest removal)
Hey, how about if we don't worry about what others keep on their own private property as long as it isn't hurting anybody? I consider people who presume they know what's best for everyone else the biggest nuisance of all.
Posted by werty (anonymous) on June 6, 2008 at 1:58 p.m. (Suggest removal)
...passing a 5 junk car limit is not likely to prove enforcable outside of the city limits or effective in making yards beautiful for all. My neighbors yard is a mess but with a rusty skidloader and 3 crappy boats and two old lawnmowers and this doesn't cover that. I think pink flamigo's are an eye sore too...you get the point.
I'm assuming the sheriff's dept is going to be enforcing this and I for one would rather have them spend time catching criminals and dealing with the meth problem than policing this.
Posted by werty (anonymous) on June 6, 2008 at 2:02 p.m. (Suggest removal)
...plus with this ordinance your still allowed 4 junk vehicles with no issues. This ordinance as it's drawn up is a waste of time for all.
Posted by positivelyperham (anonymous) on June 6, 2008 at 2:30 p.m. (Suggest removal)
this government in general is out of control with banning and restricting and licensing. when you start paying my taxes you can have a say in what i keep in my yard as long as its legal. shoreland management is one of the worst abusers in the county for this.
Posted by Mel (anonymous) on June 6, 2008 at 2:50 p.m. (Suggest removal)
I'm with 'Hmmm' & 'positivelyperham' Just leave us alone!
Posted by Newshound (anonymous) on June 6, 2008 at 3:14 p.m. (Suggest removal)
I really don't care if YOU like to look at all that crap. But in most civilzed states you at least have to FENCE your mess so the rest of us don't have to have our day ruined.
The County can't adopt this type ordnance fast enough for me. Then the next thing is a NOISE ordinance so I don't have to listen to your dog bark all day and all night or hear your $%##$%& boombox from a mile down the lake. Love dogs, got a few myself. But they don't bother YOU. Junked cars, annoying dogs, boom box screaming; all come from cluttered minds.
Posted by goingfishing (anonymous) on June 6, 2008 at 3:28 p.m. (Suggest removal)
Looking at something that does not meet your approval ruins your day? It sounds to me like you need to get a life and learn to keep your nose out of other peoples property.
An ordinance like this, if passed, is typical of a very minor portion of the population getting their way over the wishes of the majority.
Posted by otterfan (anonymous) on June 6, 2008 at 3:53 p.m. (Suggest removal)
Junked cars, annoying dogs, boom box screaming and what have you, is what america is about. We are allowed these things because we have a thing called FREEDOM. People complaining about every thing is what will bring america down. positivelyperham you make a wonderful point!!
Posted by Granny (anonymous) on June 6, 2008 at 7:08 p.m. (Suggest removal)
What about the dock and lifts and all the rest of the fun summer things that are all over and in the ditches at the dealerships. It's a business as is a junk yard where are they drawing a line. HMMMMMMMMM can we earn $$$ to pay for our gas so we can drive around to look at this.
Posted by tippy98c (anonymous) on June 6, 2008 at 9:44 p.m. (Suggest removal)
Who's the "we" in the "we support the Otter Tail County Board getting tough on junk cars and other salvage with a tougher nuisance ordinance."?
Posted by walleye29 (anonymous) on June 7, 2008 at midnight (Suggest removal)
For the past 100 years we have had junk cars in the county and to my knowledge they haven't hurt anyone. This is just another example of the government trying to create a police state. This law is stupid. This is Ottertail County not Malibu Beach! And no I do not have any of these types of vehicals myself.
Posted by Newshound (anonymous) on June 7, 2008 at 6:11 a.m. (Suggest removal)
Hey fellas: when everybody is just "left alone to do their own thing" you end up with Somolia....Zimbabwe....Uganda. We don't really CARE if you do your own thing-I do. But you don't have to be so messy about it. Fence it and I'm fine. Even wide-open Montana has restrictions on junk piles within the public view.
Of course sometimes, the way I dress, people have accused ME of being a junk pile in public view!
Posted by truthsayer (anonymous) on June 7, 2008 at 6:05 p.m. (Suggest removal)
Have any of you taken the effort to question the county about what is going on here. I did and found the following.
1. The county is being petitioned by a group of taxpayers to enact this. Remember, citizens have the right to petition their government.......
2. Are all of those collectors of retired vehicles making sure that residual fuel, oil, and anti-freeze are properly disposed of? Or are we just creating propblems for someone else?
Posted by worthy01 (anonymous) on June 7, 2008 at 7:53 p.m. (Suggest removal)
How about dealing with the smaller towns in Ottertail County were there is so much favortism it is a pick and choose who has to clean up their yard and fence in their stuff. Yet people are allowed to leave their multiple boat trailers in their yards when they are up here just for the season.
Posted by AmyO (anonymous) on June 9, 2008 at 2:19 p.m. (Suggest removal)
"It sounds to me like you need to get a life and learn to keep your nose out of other peoples property." - goingfishing
This is the same attitude that we and our government took towards environmental protection for decades. Apparently we're still not very good at learning from our mistakes. Surprised?
Cars-R-Coffins. Ride a bike!
Posted by BloopTriple (anonymous) on June 9, 2008 at 3:28 p.m. (Suggest removal)
I think this ordinance is a good idea and it's a good time for it: scrap prices are very high right now.
Posted by tippy98c (anonymous) on June 9, 2008 at 4:48 p.m. (Suggest removal)
I think old barns are eyesores, lets get rid of them.
How about those old, rusted threshing machines you see sitting on hilltops all over the county? We better do away with those as well.
Posted by Mel (anonymous) on June 9, 2008 at 5:54 p.m. (Suggest removal)
And don't forget to outlaw odd colored houses, camp fires, smoking, hunting, traping, pan handleing, SUVs, loud pipes, lightening strikes, guns, unmowed lawns, junk boats, fat foods,,,,,,,,,
Posted by localfisherman (anonymous) on June 10, 2008 at 7:31 a.m. (Suggest removal)
i dont like to look at docks and lifts on the shoreline. they ruin the beauty of all our fine lakeshores. i have an idea. lets ban them. gimme a break people and get a life
Posted by goingfishing (anonymous) on June 10, 2008 at 9:08 a.m. (Suggest removal)
I so agree with the comment about the lifts and boats that line the shoreline 75 feet apart (or less) along the entire shore of some lakes. Going to a lake without a single dock extending into the water is so much more enjoyable. And, what about all the oil and spilled gas that is put into the lakes from all those boats sitting on lifts? There is no doubt that a high level of pullution comes about from that. People that have lake homes should be required to remove their boats and store them inside when they are not actually in use.
Let's add to the proposed junk cars ordinance a clause that prohibits boats from being within 50 feet of a lake if not in use. And as for docks that ruin the enjoyment of viewing lakeshore as it was meant to be, lets prohibit them so we don't have to put up with such unslightly things.
Posted by bucksteel (anonymous) on June 10, 2008 at 11:34 a.m. (Suggest removal)
Let's eliminate public accesses so that you can't use the lake unless you own property on it. That would help eliminate the spread of milfoil and other non-native stuff. And it would cut down a lot on boat traffic on the lakes.
Posted by tbaarr (anonymous) on June 22, 2008 at 11:04 a.m. (Suggest removal)
Peope who want to force other people to live life as they feel it should be lived, are the worst kind of pollution in this country. This proposed law may have some value within the city limits where land lots are small and housing is close together,but in the county where we own multiple acres of land to have our privacy. They have no right to tell us how to police our property. WE already pay this so called permit price by the HIGHER property taxes WE pay as owners of large lots over 2.5 acres. I bet the people who started this push for this law also are dumb enough to support GEORGE BUSH and his band of liars and gasoline price thieves.
Post a comment
(Requires free registration.)