Infignos Media - Anniston’s silly ordinances

From Local News

Brought to you by TCBY Yogurt

The country's best yogurt. Softserve, hand scooped, smoothies, cakes, pies, and specialty items. There's nothing like a specialty ice cream cake for your next special occasion! Visit or Anniston location at 1903 Quintard Avenue. 256-238-8229.

Anniston’s silly ordinances

Tuesday, June 3, 2014

One common attribute of most municipalities are anachronistic rules and ordinances that probably once made sense, but no longer fit. Unfortunately, even if there was wisdom at one point in time, the fact that these edicts were once in place, either make the municipality look rather silly or call to question the value of such rules in the first place as many of them are no longer enforced yet still in effect. The City of Anniston’s current Municipal Code is no different.

Initially we looked for evidence supporting the rule about not allowing jeans to be worn on Noble Street. The existence of this was attributed to Anniston on a few websites. Fortunately, this is presently an urban legend as we could find no evidence of it in either the current or most recent Code. However, what we did find was rather interesting.

One of the most glaring examples was what appears to be unfair discrimination against men. According to the current Code, you can end up doing hard labor for six months in the city jail for disturbing a woman in a rude or indecent way provided that she is in a “public assembly met for the purpose of public amusement, instruction, or recreation.” So, it seems that if you desire to conduct yourself in such a manner, make sure that it is in private. However, think again. You can still end up doing hard time if any woman hears you speaking a profane or obscene word (even if it is on a telephone.) If such behavior or language is directed to or heard by a man, the same penalty does not apply. (See Sec. 17.39 and Sec 17.40, Code 1961, 18.48 and 18.50.)

We had another chuckle when reading about the conduct requirements of our policemen. Our protectors of the peace are prohibited from associating with “lewd or questionable characters or frequenting bawdyhouses or places of ill repute.” Thus they are limited only to associating with the non-criminal element and must never enter a suspected brothel. This makes their job quite easy as they are prohibited from communicating with anyone who may most likely have the propensity of committing a crime. By following this, a policeman (or policewoman) cannot do his/her job. And, as places known for or suspected as locales for prostitution are mentioned separately as being unlawful, enforcement of such laws cannot be accomplished by city policemen as they would be committing a misdemeanor merely by attempting to apply the law unless they could do so remotely. (See Sec. 24.17, Code 1961, 22.38.)

One of our favorites has to do with animal control. The Code clearly establishes that any American Pit Bull Terrier or Staffordshire Bull Terrier or American Staffordshire Terrier is by definition a vicious dog. Nevertheless, the city fathers saw wisdom in exempting vicious dogs that are used to help the blind, deaf, or handicapped or used in law enforcement. So, apparently not all of such breeds are to be considered as vicious. Yes, the same breed that gets a bum rap due to its occasional use in unlawful dog fighting, can still be used in nursing homes as loving companions. No further guidelines are given in determining when such “vicious” animals can be used to serve those who are the most vulnerable. (See Ord. No. 07-o-12, 1, 2, 11-27-2007)

More disturbingly is the statement that any dog, which is derived from or “contains as an element of its breeding” such presumptively defined vicious breeds is by designation also of that category. The Code goes on to specify enhanced enclosure requirements and even the responsibility that the owner take out a $100,000 insurance policy on behalf of the city. The problem is that this currently unenforced rule would apply to just about every stray and mixed breed dog in Anniston. According to Anniston Medical Center Veterinarian Susan LeCoq, just about every mixed breed dog in Calhoun County contains some DNA attributable to those breeds that are presumably defined by the Code as being vicious. This means that there are most likely thousands of Anniston citizens who are breaking the law if their dog is not a pure bred of a sort not unfairly listed in the ordinance. Should this ever be enforced, there would be a ridiculous burden on the city’s citizens – although insurance and fence companies would love it.

The problem with unenforced and rather ridiculous laws is that many of our city’s Code provisions are selectively enforced while other rules are put in place by the city’s many departments even though they are contrary the official Code, not in the public’s interest, or just don’t pass the common sense test. Relying upon an arbitrary interpretation of the Code authors’ intentions and/or not assuring that the city’s administrators and enforcers are fully cognizant of the Code, leaves too much opportunity of inaccurate application – and thus the denial of our citizen’s rights. Unfortunately, for most typical cities, this is the norm.

For instance, there are currently rules in force in at least one park, which prevents the city’s citizens or visitors from being accompanied by their dogs on walking trails. However, according the Code, such persons and their pets are only required to make sure that the animal is controlled by a leash of 10 feet or shorter. Therefore, dog owners have the right to walk with their dogs on those trails despite the posted policy of the local administrator. Yes, the policy violates City Code. (Of course, the “magical” 10 foot requirement, while it is used in several other cities’ Codes, is arbitrary. Many cities merely state that the animal must be under adequate control by its handler.)

The Code goes on to state that the Parks Director has the authority to eject a person (and presumably their dog) should they violate the provisions of that particular section of Code. However, the Director has absolutely no authority to eject such dog-walkers provided that they have their pet on an “adequate leash” no longer than ten feet. Of course, that is unless said person or dog is drunk, starting a fire, gambling, inappropriately dressed, or begging. Therefore, as long as we are using an adequate leash and our dog does not ask for a treat during our perambulation, we are okay – and the park official is in violation of the Code by asking us to leave! (See Sec. 19.27 and 19.30.)

Every city must constantly review their Code provisions to make sure that they are relevant, well-written, and reflect the times. Thus due to the complexity and numerous issues involved in running a city, it is neigh impossible to maintain a perfect Code thereby opening up the possibility that an investigator can find humor therein. While we know that our current leaders are striving to do their best to manage the city while undergoing many programs of constant improvement, these discrepancies still leave us opportunities to occasionally chuckle.

Here's More...

Dental Health is Important for Children's 'Baby Teeth'

only 63 percent of children ages two to four see the dentist at least annually.

Lamb Chops and Red Wine: A Perfect Easter Pairing

consider a classic red variety like Cabernet Sauvignon.

Alabama Department of Public Health issues 2016 Fish Consumption

advisory may place the consumer at risk for harm from the contaminant.

Aquarium animals and plants should never be released in the wild

Releasing aquatic plants is illegal

Keywords: Anniston, Alabama, Anniston AL, ordinance, city code, urban legends

Visit Local News