Angle 1 – Code Violation. Apparently for seven years the city didn’t really think it was in violation of any code, until the inspectors began “finding” violations seemingly all at once around the city, most of which had been going on exceedingly innocuously for many years. I find it incredibly hard to believe that it was oversight on the part of every single city inspector walking the beat. Meaning, they weren’t actually code violations until someone arbitrarily decided they were. There is no timely manner to speak of, because they were never actually in violation of anything significant.

Angle 2 – Public Complaints. citizens complain about the flamingo because it’s an eyesore, they find it offensive, etc. and the city says “ok we’ve received some complaints, pay us 800 dollars and we’ll ignore them.” This is pretty much exactly what happened with the Elvis statue at Nacho Mama’s – someone “anonymously complained” to the DoGC and Nacho Mama’s was fined. How does the money change anything at all?

Angle 3 – Safety Hazard. If that thing fell of off the fire escape I highly doubt it would wipe out a car. It’s made of chicken wire. Besides which, how is 800 dollars paid to the city going to make any bit of difference as to whether or not that happens at all? Citing it as a “safety hazard” and then saying “well paying 800 a year ought to cover it” doesn’t really make any bit of sense. At all.

Angle 4 – Significance. This is my favorite part. The Cafe owner hangs a decoration seven years ago, never takes it down, and over the years said decoration is publicly transformed from “decoration” to “marketing ploy” to “local icon” and so forth. The court of public opinion – and the city – has somehow decided that the thing is an advertisement for the cafe and is invading public space, and therefore needs to be taxed. Some decry its existence, others worship it – so because it’s popular/controversial and is considered some sort of landmark, the city is owed money? WHY? Seriously, WHY? Even if the city forced the owner to recognize the flamingo as a billboard advertisement and charge them because “it brings more business to the cafe” the city still benefits in the form of taxes garnered from the business itself. The never lost anything by not charging them 800 bucks.

Great, I just wrote another post in comment form.

What would happen if that thing fell off the fire escape and wiped out a car driving up 36th?

There are a reasons for things like inspections / building codes / etc.

People need to learn to separate out the issues at play here:
1. Someone violating an existing code
2. The city not citing code violations in a timely manner
3. The object itself’s significance.

Like it or not, laws exist for reasons, and most of the time, they’re reasons that aren’t immediately apparent to a casual observer.

That line made my day. People in this city get so worked up over little things, but we can’t seem to get upset over the crime rate (i suppose its down, and thats good, but we’re still talking about a lot of murders). There was a lot of media coverage over the decapitated body found in the sewer manhole, but thats the kind of story that sells itself, its like something out of CSI. Apparently stories akin to the Wire don’t sell many papers/tv ads

A few years ago, I did a piece about how Honfest is hated by the locals, who see it as gimmicky, and loved by tourists. I even spoke with John Waters, who said the image of the Hon is overplayed.

Of course, TV news being TV news, this set off a firestorm of controversy, which ended with Waters calling Denise to apologize. Funny thing was, Denise admitted the whole thing was a gimmick. That’s the point, she said, and the result is more attention on Hampden.

Also, good call on the Dept. of General Services. I’d forgotten about them until this.