The Right Call

I t was a brief but awkward moment in council chambers Monday night. Council members were in the midst of discussing a proposed amendment to the city's municipal code that shifts the burden of repairing and maintaining the public-right-ofway portion of local homeowners' sewer connection to the city's main line.

The first, second and third readings of the amendment had already passed unanimously and the council was getting ready to vote on the ordinance itself when councilman Merle Jackson noted that the proposal represents a significant departure from the way things are done in town now.

And that prompted the publisher of this newspaper to ask why the council seemed to be in such a rush to put the amendment on the books.

Lest there be any misunderstanding, this newspaper fully supports the council's proposed amendment. Far too long have some Dayton residents been using their sewer line as a mini garbage dump only to call in the city when their line gets clogged and, in some cases, simply pushing the blockages into the portion of the line for which they know the city to be responsible.

According to one insurance carrier that insures many of the cities in the state, Dayton is one of the few towns that doesn't require homeowners to maintain their waste lines all the way to the main. Waitsburg, for instance, requires it, just as it requires homeowners to maintain or fix the sidewalk in front of their homes.

Another problem city public works crews run into is tree roots infiltrating particularly older lines from vegetation homeowners plant on the strip between the sidewalk and the street, which is in that same "gray" area covered by the city.

We believe a city education campaign, perhaps in the form of a pamphlet sent out each time a property changes ownership, coupled with this shift in responsibility would help reduce homeowners' intentional or unintentional abuse of a public good and reduce the city's current use of taxpayer dollars to fix problems for which the rest of the community shouldn't be responsible.

Going back to the speed at which this amendment change was going down the track, we also understand that the council has a right under the law to pass the aforementioned change and other ordinances without the lengthy process of breaking up the readings between council meeting, giving public notice and/or providing for public hearings.

However, we are encouraged by four of the seven council members' decision not to pass such proposals all in one sitting and, instead, give the community a chance to have input in this change in the code.

We believe that such proposed changes, particularly one that affects a large number of residents, should be carefully and thoughtfully submitted to public review or, as councilman Jackson rightly pointed out during the discussion, the public may think "we're railroading this."

Although we do not feel this needs to occur for every item before the council - or why would have elected offi- cials? - in matters that involve homeownership, it's important to hear all possible perspectives on an issue that shift the economic burden from one party to another, especially during tough times.

We cannot now see any reason to resist this change in the code, but we can't presume none exist and we feel it's critical the council weigh everything in the balance.

At the same time, homeowners should be on notice to quit the recurring practice of dumping toxic and illegal substances in their toilets, kitchen drains or utility sinks as it damages a fragile waste water treatment system paid for by all residents, not to mention the environment we live in.

Many of these chemicals can be discarded free of charge at the transfer station. (See story and information on page 1). There are simply no excuses for such wanton disregard.