I have been trying to give Mr. Bell the benefit if the doubt,

Ed Moore. Architect of Bad Idea: 419.245.1835

It's important to note that the article says this will only happen to residents with grass that's at least 8 inches tall.

Though it makes you wonder if a person who lets grass grow at least 8 inches tall and doesn't comply with a 5 day warning is really going to bother paying the fine anyhow.

I remember several years ago when there was a budget crisis with cutting public property grass. Many stepped up without receiving a single cent to help out and cut grass for the city.
Now, this is how the city returns the favor.
I don't really have the extra time, but if someone knows a person getting this "warning" and they have a legit excuse, contact me or post it here. I would consider going and cutting it for free to avoid the charge. Elderly, handicapped, etc.
I know my lawn got neglected this year when my mower died. Before I built one from some junk ones, I could have been "charged" with a grass cutting ticket.
This is a ridiculous thing. Before they worry about grass, let's look at neglected slum lord houses and suspected crack houses.

I'd prefer that people cut their grass. While my grass never exceeds 8 inches, (actually, I am a lawn freak, and my lawn always looks impeccable) I have a ruler sitting here in front of me, and I can see how during certain times of year, if you fertilize, it could grow from the recommended 3+ inch cut to 8 inches in a short amount of time.
For example... the amount of time that a person who works out of town, like myself to shop for and replace a broken mower. Or the amount of time that an elderly fixed income person might have to wait to pay someone to do it.
Is uncut grass ugly? Yep.
Not as ugly as our city government has become. They used to work for us. Now they look for any opportunity to fine, penalize, harass and bother people.
Perhaps this new program is to pay for Mr. Moore's recent purchase of a bunch of new mowers and pick up trucks? Who said that there were no coincidences?
http://www.toledoblade.com/local/2012/05/22/Toledo-increases-grass-mowing-efforts.html

Ugh...hockeyfan, I hear you on that. Our mower died last summer. Right before a very rainy period where the grass was growing like crazy.

By the time we replaced the mower and the ground was dry enough to actually mow...eek! It wasn't pretty.

Although I personally am at little risk from this... it is so stupid that I truly think it may be my last straw. I earn my money elsewhere, and deliver it to Toledo. Perhaps it's time to reduce my commute and live where I work. And pay taxes there.

The Peter Principle at work:
If a heavy equipment operator hangs on long enough.... they will eventually make him a commissioner.

Can people already be fined for unmowed grass?

I'd have thought there would already be some sort of fine in place? I know there is one where I live (Sylvania Twp)...I don't recall the exact amount of the fine or the height of the grass, but I know one exists.

Having lived next to two properties that went into foreclosure I can testify to grass that becomes taller than a privacy fence. It makes everyone's property worth less.

We finally gave up trying to get the lawns mowed and did the front yards ourselves. And finally the homes were sold and our problem solved.

Everyone understands when rainy weather or vacations, etc. make lawns look untidy. But what we saw personally makes me say it is about time. Now I also know of city property in our neighborhood that is 3 feet high by now. Are they going to mow that area or forget it as usual?

any provision if you put in a water retention area and/or plant natural local prairie grasses meant to grow taller?

there are clearly far more pressing issues than going after residents on this... i could see some provision for non-owner-occupied residential units or commercial property. but i've got a feeling they are looking for income streams that don't tarnish their image as any thing goes for business interests.

I think I misunderstood the original article.

Initially, I thought they were going to notify individual homes with grass taller than 8 inches, and give them 5 days to take care of it.

Now I see that they want to put a "blanket notice in area newspapers."

That's a big difference to me. I wouldn't necessarily see anything wrong with issuing citations to specific property owners, but I'm not sure I agree with publishing a general notice in the paper. You can't guarantee that everyone saw the notice.

The sales prices of foreclosed homes are what makes property values lower. Not so much an actually easily rectified problem of tall grass. Again, I never, ever leave my grass uncut. If they want to charge banks to cut the grass of bank-owned foreclosed homes... go ahead and try. But to go after owner-occupied homes over a 4 inch differential between "proper" lawn height and "illegal" lawn height? Without regard to circumstance, upkeep history, overall condition of property? Insane.

Thank you. That was part of my original concern.

My problem is with the idea that now someone will be paid to list names and addresses in the paper, which also costs money, and keeping track of uncut grass.
Maybe they can give that "new" position to those who got "transferred" for not doing their job in the department of neighborhoods instead of firing them like they should have been.

Perhaps the city could be fined for failing to patch the streets in a timely fashion.

Publishing a notice in the local paper, news pamphlet, etc. has been some sort of legal requirement for the last 150 years (i.e. public notice of a sheriff's sale, etc). Of course, in the last 10-15 years with newspapers' continuing wane, it isn't as effective as it once was in reaching many, many people.

Has there been any updating to the public notice rules to incorporate newer media? Curious....

They should be fined for not patching them in a strategic fashion. We want a steady, sustained maintenance program. NOT skip fixing them for three years and then suddenly play catch up by tearing them all up at once. But hey... I should focus on one type of incompetence at a time.

oldhometown - there was some discussion about publishing public notices on line as well as in a 'paper of record' along with some concern over what constitutes a 'paper of record.'

My recollection is that following all the discussion, no changes were made. Obviously, the larger daily newspapers across the state who currently have the 'paper of record' designation are not happy about anything that would reduce or eliminate the fees they get for such notices.

Personally I like the on-line idea, but I realize that not everyone has easy access to computers, but purchasing a newspaper every day in order to see the public notices is also a difficulty for some. My preference would be that public notices be posted in libararies on designated bulletin boards...no cost to access them and most everyone has easy access to a library.

As for the original item in the post, I've always liked Maumee's process. They give notices and then, to preserve the neighborhood, do any mowing that might be necessary and bill the owner. If the owner doesn't pay, they put a lien on the property and eventually end up recouping their costs when the property is sold. I don't know the average amount of time it takes to get their money that way, but at least it's listed as owed when it's a lien.

As far as "preserve the neighborhood" goes, how about enforcing the noise ordinances. Tall grass doesn't wake me up at night. Ghetto bumping subwoofer cars and dogs left out do.

I already vote against just about every single levy, but maybe more will join and actually start decreasing the never-ending increasing fees, fines, and taxes.

Regarding fees and taxes, Bell hasn't been different than previous mayors.

For every penny he got from city unions, he has increased taxes ten fold or more.

He sold some city assets (good idea imo), but that money was used to soften municipal unions' concessions.

He raided the capital improvements fund, again to avoid layoffs and/or concessions from municipal unions. That's no longer an issue, for the most recent 3/4% tax renewal now grants that power without vote.

The neighborhoods scandal, and favors he granted his niece don't pass the smell test.

Overall grade C-.

This is great. I am fairly certain I'm in the minority but then none of you have the slobs that live next to you like me. Just so you, they literally cut the grass for the first time last weekend...yeah, I said first time. They claim to have allergies and can't afford to to hire some one but can afford to drive up to their camp grounds every weekend. I hope Bell makes this official...maybe after they pay the city some $ they will find the time to take care of their property.

The worst thing about this is, you know darn well it won't be enforced fairly for everyone.
A couple of years ago my mother in law got a nuisance abatement type of letter threatening fines and whatever because the paint on her detached garage was peeling. She btw, is 81 and not in good health.
The thing that burned me about that is I see houses in the inner city every single day that are half burned, partially boarded up, grass uncut, damn near falling down. Why isn't anything done about those?

Maggie

I like Maumee's process as you described. It puts the burden where it belongs, on the home owner.

We are still home owners - drat. As such it is our responsibility to keep our property up. When we can no longer do that we should move into something maintenance free.

I see that I missed a small spot near a bush. It measures 8 inches in height there. One half of one square foot out of 9,000 square feet of lawn. How much 8 inch grass do you need to have, and who makes the call? The same people who claimed that they mowed lots that were proven not to exist last year?

http://www.toledoblade.com/local/2012/06/04/Untitled-BUD2PS31-0D6.html

Throw away any "benefit of the doubt" as he has proven he is just as corrupt as his predecessors.

I tried. Despite what I believe to be some decent economic development work, I give up.

6th_Floor & justread

I agree with both of you. Such a disappointment.

The problem is don't want people who want whats best for the city, we want people who does what WE THINK is best for city. That means 49% of the people are going to be dissatisfied all the time.

Politics is a messy sport and sometimes doing the right thing isn't going to sit well with the unions/local business. Well sometimes that is just to damn bad, we need to do right by the overall citizenry.

Not defending Bell because the nepotism and backroom deals have sunk what was a semi-effective administration. It's too much to look past, no waterside park covers up corruption.

...nice work if you can get it...and you can get it if you try...

--George Gershwin