Regarding the View Preservation Ordinance, I have addressed the City Council three times and the Planning Commission once. The result of my presentations? “We need more time to study,” was the response This matter has been before the council officially for at least two years. The problem isn’t really all that difficult to solve. The title of the draft ordinance, “View Preservation Ordinance,” says it all. Any reasonable interpretation of those words means that the homeowner’s view (of the ocean) is to be restored or preserved.
For that reason, I was amazed to hear Councilman Jennings remark to the effect that one property owner’s view should not interfere with another property owner’s right to privacy. Jennings’ remark turns the whole subject on its head. This is not a privacy preservation ordinance. His remark also tells me why there has been glacial movement on this long overdue city action.
As I have pointed out during my presentations, the draft view ordinance is seriously deficient, indeed beyond repair. Among its many deficiencies is the fact that the burden of proof rests with the offended party to prove absolutely that his or her home’s view has been adversely affected by the action of the offender. This, in spite of indifferent, selfish or even willful actions by the offender!
I recommend that the City Council direct the Planning Commission to reject the current draft ordinance in toto. The Commission should also be directed immediately to hold de novo hearings on the subject. I would welcome the opportunity to outline the principal discussion points needed to arrive at an appropriate draft ordinance for final consideration.
Leon Cooper