(a) The corporate authorities of each municipality may demolish, repair, or enclose or cause the demolition, repair, or enclosure of dangerous and unsafe buildings or uncompleted and abandoned buildings within the territory of the municipality and may remove or cause the removal of garbage, debris, and other hazardous, noxious, or unhealthy substances or materials from those buildings.
The corporate authorities shall apply to the circuit court of the county in which the building is located (i) for an order authorizing action to be taken with respect to a building if the owner or owners of the building, including the lien holders of record, after at least 15 days’ written notice by mail so to do, have failed to put the building in a safe condition or to demolish it or (ii) for an order requiring the owner or owners of record to demolish, repair, or enclose the building or to remove garbage, debris, and other hazardous, noxious, or unhealthy substances or materials from the building. It is not a defense to the cause of action that the building is boarded up or otherwise enclosed, although the court may order the defendant to have the building boarded up or otherwise enclosed.
Thursday, March 28, 2013
Tuesday, March 26, 2013
Tuesday, March 26, 2013 Julie Tappendorf
Tuesday, March 26, 2013 Julie Tappendorf
Monday, March 25, 2013
Monday, March 25, 2013 Julie Tappendorf
Tuesday, March 19, 2013
Tuesday, March 19, 2013 Julie Tappendorf
Thursday, March 14, 2013
Thursday, March 14, 2013 Julie Tappendorf
The challenged ordinance provides, in pertinent part, as follows:
Wednesday, March 13, 2013
Wednesday, March 13, 2013 Julie Tappendorf
First, state law already provides a procedure for requesting and obtaining information from a public body. Under the Freedom of Information Act, an individual can request a copy of a public record, or inspect a public record, and the public body has five business days to respond to that request. The Open Meetings Act is not intended to be a public record or information statute. Instead, the purpose of the OMA is to govern the conduct of meetings of public bodies, including establishing certain notice obligations and permitting the public to attend.
Second, it is unclear how the "corporate authorities" would provide a written response by the next meeting. The corporate authorities of a public body (e.g., a village board or city council) act legislatively - must they first list their response on the next meeting agenda for action before they release it? Did the bill sponsor mean to say the public body must respond?
Third, how will this bill be enforced? Since the new obligation is under the OMA (rather than FOIA), does that mean criminal penalties will apply for non-compliance?
Fourth, public comment is intended to allow individuals to express their opinions, not engage in a debate - does this proposed legislation suggest that the corporate authorities (as a legislative entity, no less) are obligated to respond to questions?
Fifth, what if there are different views or positions among members of the corporate authorities - must the corporate authorities respond with a majority and minority response?
There is simply no need for the establishment of a new public information procedure within the OMA when a perfectly adequate procedure already exists under FOIA. If an individual requests information at a public meeting and does not obtain that information, he or she always has the right to file a FOIA request to either inspect or receive a copy of the public record containing the information he or she seeks.
Post Authored by Julie Tappendorf, Ancel Glink
Tuesday, March 12, 2013
Tuesday, March 12, 2013 Julie Tappendorf
Friday, March 8, 2013
Friday, March 08, 2013 Julie Tappendorf
Thursday, March 7, 2013
Thursday, March 07, 2013 Julie Tappendorf
Wednesday, March 6, 2013
Wednesday, March 06, 2013 Julie Tappendorf
Tuesday, March 5, 2013
Tuesday, March 05, 2013 Julie Tappendorf
Monday, March 4, 2013
Monday, March 04, 2013 Julie Tappendorf
Friday, March 1, 2013
Friday, March 01, 2013 Julie Tappendorf