The need for enforcement

In our previous editorial we noted the ways in which the City of Sonoma’s rules are ignored by individuals and businesses alike, who too often take it upon themselves to make up their own rules. They do it without suffering much consequence, largely because of lack of enforcement. This creates and reinforces the unfortunate attitude that breaking rules is fine if you don’t get caught.

Enforcement action in Sonoma is triggered by complaint, which is to say the city usually waits until a violation of the rules is brought to its attention by a citizen before it takes any action. This is not universally true; for example, construction projects are inspected at many points along the way to determine if they are being built according to regulations. However, outside that arena, and Plaza parking violations, the City’s default attitude is: If no one complains, no one cares.

Thus the excessive height of a neighbors new fence, an incessantly barking dog, music playing too loud or too late at a commercial location, operating a business without a license, renting a house to tourists in a residential zone, filling a new swimming pool with the garden hose, using a leaf-blower on Sunday, improperly disposing of trash, fire hazards, and other stones in the foundation of Sonoma’s Quality of Life are constantly being chipped away addressed only if a complaint comes in. If it comes in on a weekend or after 5PM, City Hall is closed. The police – busy enough fighting crime — are not the enforcers of Development Code and other civil regulations.

It’s not like this in every small town. Many safeguard their Quality of Life by having an enforcement officer on staff to proactively discover, correct and in some cases, cite those who make up their own rules. Violations can be called-in 24-hours-a-day and are handled by an employee who’s only job is enforcement. Funding for such positions comes from the fines and fees such enforcement generates.

In the City of Sonoma, for example, enforcing vacation rental restrictions has been subcontracted to a company which is charging 45% of all the money collected from scofflaws. The City gets an audit report only every 6 months. We don’t have an exact number, but wager the amount collected would fund a significant portion of the salary of a full-time enforcement officer. When combined with the myriad of other enforcement actions which also generate fines and penalties, it seems obvious that funding for the enforcement officer position is readily available, and that filling the position won’t be difficult.

But the purpose of an enforcement officer is not fines but promoting compliance with our own Rules. The sad human reality is that fear of getting caught persuades many who might not otherwise toe-the-line. Indeed, lack of enforcement invites disrespect of the rules by otherwise decent people who may understandably come to regard the rules as merely suggestions, to be followed only by fools.

Many cities struggle with issues affecting the everyday quality of life of their residents and many such issues are easily resolved by simple enforcement. It’s long past time that a Council which repeatedly claims to value “local control” demonstrates that it is actually capable of it. Council should create the position of Enforcement Officer immediately.