HomeMy WebLinkAbout~Master - June 15, 2021, Special Meeting of the Ames City CouncilAMENDED
AGENDA
SPECIAL MEETING OF THE AMES CITY COUNCIL
COUNCIL CHAMBERS - CITY HALL
515 CLARK AVENUE
JUNE 15, 2021
NOTICE TO THE PUBLIC: The Mayor and City Council welcome comments from the public
during discussion. If you wish to speak, please complete an orange card and hand it to the City
Clerk. When your name is called, please step to the microphone, state your name for the record,
and limit the time used to present your remarks in order that others may be given the opportunity
to speak. . In consideration of all, if you have a cell phone, please turn it off or put it on silent ring.
CALL TO ORDER: 6:00 P.M.
Additional Item: Resolution setting date of public hearing for June 22, 2021, regarding granting
an Easement to Interstate Power & Light for a gas pipeline from the right-of-way at the intersection
of E. 13th Street and Maxwell Street south for 40 feet along the east side of Maxwell Street
WORKSHOP ON PROPOSED EXTERIOR PROPERTY MAINTENANCE CODE:
1. Public Input
DISPOSITION OF COMMUNICATIONS TO COUNCIL:
COUNCIL COMMENTS:
ADJOURNMENT:
1
ITEM # Addt’l. Item
DATE 06-15-22
COUNCIL ACTION FORM
SUBJECT: REQUEST FROM INTERSTATE LIGHT AND POWER COMPANY TO
THE CITY TO GRANT AN EASEMENT FOR A NEW UNDERGROUND
GAS PIPELINE
BACKGROUND:
City staff has received a request from Interstate Light and Power Company (IPL), an Iowa
Corporation, for a permanent easement on City property at the southeast corner of 13th
St. and Maxwell Avenue, adjacent to the Ames Municipal Cemetery. The reason for this
easement is to install a new underground gas pipeline.
The City would be granting a 3’ x 40’ (see map below) easement to Interstate Power &
Light for a gas pipeline from the right of way at the intersection of E. 13th Street and
Maxwell Streets, south for 40 feet along the east side of Maxwell Street. The requested
area is approximately 120 square feet (SF) in size and is currently maintained by City
staff as part of the maintenance of the Cemetery. The City does not have any structures
or trees in the area described.
The City’s Legal staff will be preparing easement documents and will be presented at the
public hearing on June 22, 2021.
2
ALTERNATIVES:
1. Set the date of public hearing as June 22, 2021 to grant a 3’ x 40 easement to
Interstate Power and Light Company for a gas pipeline from the right of way at the
intersection of E. 13th Street and Maxwell Streets, south for 40 feet along the east side
of Maxwell Street.
2. Reconsider granting the aforementioned easement.
CITY MANAGER’S RECOMMENDED ACTION:
In preparation for the reconstruction of E. 13th Street, IPL is using the opportunity
to install a new of natural gas pipeline. The proposed easement area does not
prohibit any City maintenance activities and staff is not proposing adding any
structures, trees or other vegetation in the area.
Therefore, it is the City Manager’s recommendation that the City Council approve
Alternative No.1, as stated above.
1
ITEM # _ 1__
Staff Report
ADDITIONAL TOOLS FOR EXTERIOR PROPERTY MAINTENANCE
ENFORCEMENT FOR PROPERTIES THAT ARE NOT RESIDENTIAL RENTALS
June 15, 2021
BACKGROUND:
At the City Council meeting on August 25, 2020, the City Council requested a memo from
staff regarding recommendations for a potential Exterior Property Maintenance Code.
Over the years, the Inspection staff has been unable to adequately address complaints
from neighboring property owners regarding conditions of non-rental properties, thus
causing frustration on the part of these citizens.
This inability to consistently respond to these property maintenance complaints
results from:
1) Lack of needed enforcement regulations in the Municipal Code,
2) Those property maintenance standards that are in the Municipal Code are
scattered throughout nine different chapters which are sometimes
inconsistent or contradictory, and
3) The length of time to obtain compliance under the current enforcement
process is too lengthy and has proven to be ineffective in multiple
instances.
The City currently has a Community Codes Liaison (CCL) who is charged with enforcing
several sections of the Municipal Code both proactively and reactively. The CCL responds
to complaints and educates customers regarding Code standards. It also patrols
neighborhoods to reduce complaints and gain voluntary compliance when violations are
noted.
Staff has surveyed numerous jurisdictions around central Iowa and found that many of
them have a single ordinance for property maintenance that consolidates all the
necessary code sections, enforcement procedures, and appeal procedures for owner-
occupied properties. This one-stop-shop approach provides clarity and consistency for
staff and citizens. Most of the ordinances reviewed were also equipped with abatement
procedures to facilitate compliance in a timely manner. Swift and effective compliance
techniques lessen the impact of the nuisance on the neighborhood and allows residents
to continue to enjoy their properties and neighborhoods.
2
The City Council might remember that the issue of an Exterior Property
Maintenance Code for owner-occupied properties was considered back in 2008. At
that time a citizen committee appointed by the City Council recommended
consideration of twenty-three items from the International Code Council’s
International Property Maintenance Code. However, after receiving public input
regarding the proposed comprehensive code changes, the City Council chose in
2009 not to pursue the adoption of them.
GOALS OF THE PROPOSED EXTERIOR PROPERTY MAINTENANCE CODE:
• Public Safety
• Healthy Living Conditions
• General Community Welfare
• Consolidation of code sections
• Clear regulations to help citizens understand code requirements
• Eliminate violations in a timely manner
PROPOSED ORDINANCE:
Staff hopes to create an ordinance that is designed to correct the three challenges
to property maintenance enforcement in order to meet the goals stated above. In
lieu of a more comprehensive approach identified in the International Property
Maintenance Code, a new ordinance should focus only on those exterior complaint
issues most frequently fielded by the Inspection staff. (See Attachment 2)
It should be emphasized that Staff is suggesting that a new ordinance be applied
to owner-occupied residential properties, owner-occupied or rental commercial
properties, and owner-occupied or rental industrial properties. (Note: residential
rental property regulations are addressed in Chapter 13 of the Municipal Code)
NEW SECTIONS:
The following items would become violations under a new ordinance. The rationale
for including these regulations is provided with each item. It should be emphasized
that these regulations might need further clarification in regards to height,
timeframes, locations, etc.
1. Leaving garbage receptacles at the curb for more than 24 hours – The Rental Code
currently prohibits leaving garbage receptacles out for more than 24 hours, but
there is no requirement for owner-occupied properties. Receptacles left at the curb
can cause visibility issues and can be blown over, depositing litter onto neighboring
properties.
2. Allowing garbage, junk, yard waste to be stored – This is currently prohibited under
the outdoor storage section of the Zoning Code which defines outdoor storage as
items stored for more than 72 hours. The new ordinance combines garbage and
3
junk into one section and prohibits outdoor storage for up to 48 hours rather than
72. Yard waste will be allowed to be stored outdoors for up to seven days, and
may remain as long as composting is being conducted in accordance with State of
Iowa code.
3. Allowing stagnant water to pool – Stagnant water creates a breeding ground for
mosquitos. Stagnant water mean standing water that is trapped and does not
circulate. (This excludes: bird baths, coy ponds, landscape water features)
4. Depositing mud/gravel/etc. on sidewalks – The current code prohibits owners from
allowing snow to accumulate on public sidewalks. Often, there are issues with mud
or gravel run-off from private property accumulating on walks as well. The
proposed ordinance would allow these accumulations to be addressed.
5. Placing/pushing snow/ice onto public streets – Although Municipal Code currently
prohibits the accumulation of snow and ice on public sidewalks, an issue that is
frequently encountered during snow removal operations is the depositing of that
snow and ice onto the streets after they have been plowed. These accumulations
are susceptible to re-freezing, which can be a hazard to drivers and makes
subsequent snow removal operations more difficult.
6. Grasses over 12 inches in ROW and ROW Encroachment – Tall vegetation in the
right-of-way may create visibility issues. Another issue within the ROW is the type
of vegetation that is allowed to be grown. Many property owners keep this area
planted with turf grass. However, in some instances property owners have planted
vegetation that can grow very tall, causing visibility issues (sweet corn, sunflowers,
etc.). The proposed section does not restrict the type of vegetation, but limits it to
12 inches in height. In addition, there are several areas around the City where
vegetation (trees or bushes) originates on private property, but grows over or into
the sidewalk or street and impedes pedestrian or vehicle flow.
7. Trees hanging over ROW – Historically, staff has required tree branches to be a
minimum of 16 feet above the street (based on the height of Cy-Ride buses) and
ten feet above a sidewalk/bike path (to accommodate bicyclists). However, these
standards are not codified, making it much more difficult to educate property
owners.
8. Dense growth of vegetation – Dense vegetation may cause issues with
ingress/egress from a structure, can be a fire hazard, provides concealment for
criminals and may be aesthetically displeasing to neighbors.
9. Turf grasses exceeding 12 inches on private property – Excessive height turf
grasses can create a habitat for vermin, can be a fire hazard, and may be
aesthetically displeasing. Currently, registered rental properties are required to
keep their turf grasses under 12 inches. There is no equivalent standard for owner-
occupied properties, even those abutting rental properties. By calling out turf
4
grasses specifically, owners that would like to have taller native vegetation are still
able to do so.
10. Dangerous trees – To be deemed dangerous, the tree must pose an immediate
threat to the safety of persons or property in the right-of-way.
11. Conditions that harbor vermin – These conditions are currently described in the
Junk Vehicle Code, but there are times when conditions such as this may need
enforcement where no junked vehicle is involved.
12. Open holes/excavations for up to 30 days – Open construction sites, wells, etc.
can be a safety hazard for children in particular. These holes would need to be
secured or covered. This issue excludes fire pits and window wells.
13. Vacant, unsecured structures – These structures allow people to enter the
structure (squatters), and dangerous conditions have resulted (e.g., fires) in these
instances. A shed or garage on the same property as one’s home is not considered
to be vacant.
14. Exterior structural requirements (siding, roofing, decks) – Inadequate coverings
(roofing, siding, paint, etc.) allow rain, snow, and vermin to enter. These conditions
can cause rapid deterioration of a structure. Currently, there are no standards for
structural maintenance until the structure is in such disrepair that it can be deemed
dangerous. The ability to facilitate the abatement of these issues early increases
the life of the structure and maintains aesthetic integrity for the neighborhood.
15. Graffiti removal – Rapid graffiti remediation is essential in reducing the amount of
graffiti. The proposed ordinance will prohibit graffiti from being left on any property
for more than 48 hours. Graffiti removal is currently addressed in the Rental Code,
but is often found on commercial properties that are not rentals, leaving staff with
no enforcement ability. For purposes of this issue, graffiti is paintings or markings
made without the consent and direction of the property owner.
ABATEMENT:
Staff has struggled gaining compliance with existing Code sections in a timely manner,
especially with repeat offenders. Current internal policy requires three violation notices to
be sent, with the last notice being sent by certified mail. If these attempts at education
and voluntary compliance are unsuccessful, then a citation will be issued. Citations are
typically only issued to obtain compliance, rather than to punish the offender.
Unfortunately, the citation process can be lengthy. Once a citation is forwarded to the
Legal Department, it is reviewed by an attorney and then sent by certified mail. The postal
service has two weeks to attempt service (there have been instances when the citation
has been unable to be served). Once served, a court date is set for the defendant to plead
5
guilty or not guilty. If they enter a plea of not guilty, a court date is set, which is roughly
30 days out. Meanwhile, the violation continues to exist, and enforcement is put on hold.
It is only when the court finds the defendant guilty that the City can request permission
from the court to enter the property, abate the violation, and assess the abatement costs
back to the owner. However, it is always possible the court denies the request, leaving
staff with no tools for compliance.
Research regarding other jurisdictions shows that many ordinances allow for
abatement as an enforcement tool instead of relying on a citation. With this tool, City
staff may enter the property to address the nuisance, then bill costs back to the owner. If
the owner fails to pay the costs, the City Council may approve assessing those costs to
the owner’s property. This mechanism is similar to the existing process for sidewalk snow
and ice removal enforcement, where timeliness is important. The proposed ordinance
adds abatement as a potential tool for compliance. It is not a requirement that
abatement be utilized, and it does not prohibit a citation from being issued.
APPEAL PROCESS:
Because the code sections currently utilized are scattered throughout the Municipal Code,
the appeal processes vary. Currently, three different Boards have jurisdiction over the
types of violations the proposed ordinance addresses:
• Property Maintenance Appeals Board – this board is configured to address
appeals of Rental Code issues
• Building Board of Appeals – this board reviews appeals of decisions relating to
building, electrical, mechanical, or plumbing codes
• Zoning Board of Adjustment – this board reviews alleged errors or exceptions to
zoning regulations.
It is important that any person affected by enforcement action be afforded the opportunity
to appeal the violation determination. It is equally important that the appeal process be
accessible and easy to follow for the appellant. Therefore, the new ordinance proposes
the creation of a separate board to hear appeals of this new chapter. The proposed
appeal process mimics that of the Property Maintenance Appeal Board and the Building
Board of Appeals. The recommended make-up of the Board includes neighborhood
representatives from each ward, much like the City Council, and will meet monthly.
Staff will be recommending changing the name of the appeal board for Rental
Housing to the “Rental Housing Code Appeal Board” and naming the new board
for the Property Maintenance Code chapter the “Property Maintenance AppealS
Board.”
6
DIRECTION NEEDED FROM CITY COUNCIL:
In addition to the regulations suggested above, staff is seeking City Council feedback
regarding the following issues.
1. Junk Vehicles are currently regulated through Chapter 30 of the Municipal Code.
This chapter prohibits vehicles that have been deemed ‘junked vehicles’ from
remaining on a property for more than 48 hours. It also prohibits vehicles that are
not deemed ‘junk vehicles’ from being kept on residential property for more than
15 days and on commercial property for more than one year. Exemptions from the
junked vehicle prohibitions include junked vehicles parked inside enclosed
structures, behind opaque walls at least six feet in height, covered with a tight-
fitting vehicle cover, or upon the premises of an authorized salvage yard.
Most of the other jurisdictions surveyed did not specify a timeframe for how long a
junked vehicle could be stored on a property before a violation occurs. This means
that having a junked vehicle on the property at any time would constitute a
violation. The City of Clive prohibits junked vehicles after they have been on the
property for 24 hours; a few other cities prohibit junked vehicles after 48 hours, as
is currently the standard in Ames.
Regarding vehicles that have not been declared junked, only one other jurisdiction,
the City of Norwalk, regulates the amount of time they can be stored on a property.
It appears the Ames Municipal Code and Norwalk Code are exactly the same and
prohibit the storage of operable vehicles on private property for longer than 15
days without moving.
Staff would like confirmation that the timeframes for storage (48 hours for
junked vehicles and 15 days for non-junked vehicles) and the exemptions
(behind a six-foot fence or under a vehicle cover) in the current code are
acceptable.
2. Recreational vehicle parking is currently allowed up to 72 hours when parked
behind the front yard setback on an approved surface and not used for habitation.
Staff needs to know if the City Council agrees with the location and time that
is allowed to park a recreational vehicle on a property.
3. As proposed, the ordinance would apply to all properties that are not
residential rentals. This would include owner-occupied residential properties and
all types of commercial and industrial properties. While staff has received
complaints regarding nuisance issues on all types of properties, the Council will
have to decide if the ordinance should apply as broadly as it is proposed, or if it
should be narrowed (for example, to only apply to non-rental residential, exempting
commercial and industrial).
7
4. The proposed Appeals Board composition is similar to that of the Council with
residents representing different wards. The other jurisdictions surveyed had varied
appeal processes including the utilization of an appeal judge, the City Council, a
board of citizens, and a board of staff members to hear appeals and decide as to
whether a violation exists. Staff is recommending the board of residents
concept as it is similar to the way appeals of the current code sections are
administered.
STAFF COMMENTS:
It is important to note that some of these new regulations may be contentious among
property owners. Staff recognizes that it is important to protect the freedoms of property
owners while also protecting the neighboring property owners. Therefore, the approach
taken by staff in suggesting these regulations is not to burden property owners with
extraordinary obligations, but rather to establish basic minimum standards that can be
met with modest efforts on the part of property owners.
A new ordinance would offer additional guidance regarding the minimum standards for
exterior property maintenance. In addition, this guidance should be easier to identify and
understand in one consolidated location. The proposed changes also would provide City
staff with the necessary tools to effectively enforce these issues and obtain compliance
when a property falls into disrepair or when unsafe conditions exist.
After receiving public input at the June 15th Workshop, the next step will be to bring this
matter back before the Council at a future meeting to provide direction to the staff to
develop a new Exterior Property Maintenance Code. This direction could involve
eliminating some of the suggested regulations, modifying some of the regulations in terms
of definitions and timeframes, and adding new ones.
At some time in the future, the City Council might want to consider adding to the
Rental Code (Chapter 13) the same regulations that would be covered by the new
Exterior Property Maintenance Code.
Attachment 1
FREQUENTLY ASKED QUESTIONS
REGARDING THE
PROPOSED EXTERIOR PROPERTY MAINATENCE CODE
Q. How is the proposed ordinance going to be enforced?
A. The proposed ordinance will be enforced on a complaint basis, the same
manner in which existing ordinances are enforced. Most of the enforcement
will be handled by our Community Codes Liaison but will utilize other experts,
as necessary. For example, the City Forester will be consulted to investigate
complaints received regarding the condition of trees.
Q. Is a City Employee going to be issuing fines upon finding of a violation?
A. The current enforcement policy for items of this natures is to first provide
education. Once it is determined that a violation exists, the property owner is
notified of the ordinance and the requirement to resolve the violation. A
timeframe for compliance is then given and is followed by a re-inspection.
Typically, three notices are sent, with the last one being sent by certified mail, to
try to gain compliance prior to initiating the citation process. Citations are not
issued when the owner is working toward compliance in a timely manner.
Q. Does the proposal to regulate junk, garbage, and yard waste include
composting?
A. Composting is exempt from the requirements if done in compliance with the
State of Iowa.
Q. Are the proposed regulations actual concerns and where did they come
from?
A. Most of the proposed regulations are intended to address the most common
complaints that staff receives about property maintenance. Staff reviewed
ordinances from several Iowa communities and has developed the proposed
sections based on the ordinances reviewed.
Q. Why is the City not responsible for the low-hanging trees over the right-of-
way or for public sidewalk maintenance?
A. While the City owns the right-of-way, it is the adjacent property owner’s
responsibility to maintain the area. However, trees planted in the right-of-way will
be maintained by the City. Trees that are on private property and hang over the
right-of-way are the responsibility of the property owner.
Q. The proposed ordinance restricts the height of turf grasses. Does this mean I
cannot have native vegetation, flowers, or a garden?
A. The restriction on the height of turf grasses is only for turf grasses. Other
vegetation on private property would be allowed to exceed the required height for
turf grasses. Flowers, bushes, gardens, and native vegetation would not be
regulated under the proposed ordinance.
Q. What is a dangerous tree and whom deems it dangerous?
A. After receiving a complaint, the City Forester will be consulted to determine if
a tree poses an immediate threat to the safety of persons or property in the right-
of-way.
Q. The proposed ordinance requires vacant structures to be locked. Does this
include my shed or garage?
A. A vacant structure is a building or structure on a lot that does not have an
owner actively looking after the lot. A shed or garage on the same property as
ones home (that is not vacant) would not be considered vacant.
Q. How does the City determine what a ‘junk’ vehicle is?
A. Junk vehicles are currently defined and regulated in Chapter 30 of the
Municipal Code (https://www.cityofames.org/home/showdocument?id=253). The
proposed ordinance does not change this definition.
Q. The proposed ordinance prohibits operable vehicles from remaining on a
property without being moved after a certain amount of days. Does this include
vehicles in my garage?
A. Vehicle storage is currently regulated in the same manner in Chapter 30 of
the Municipal Code (https://www.cityofames.org/home/showdocument?id=253).
Vehicles stored in a garage would not be subject to this requirement.
Q. The proposed ordinance regulates graffiti. What is the difference between
graffiti and art?
A. Included in the proposed ordinance will be a definition of graffiti that is similar
to the definition used by the City of Des Moines: “Graffiti means any marking,
inscription, drawing, picture, letter, number, symbol or other defacement or other
written communication, etched, scratched, or made with spray paint, paint, ink,
chalk, dye, or similar substance, or in any manner, on any public or private
property, including, but not limited to, streets, sidewalks, buildings, walls, bridges,
fences, or other structures which was made without the consent and under the
direction of the owner of such property.”
Q. The proposed ordinance allows for abatement of violations that have not
been resolved. Will City staff be responsible for abatement?
A. In most instances, a contractor will be hired for abatement. The costs
assessed back to the property will cover the cost of the contractor to abate the
violation and may include an administrative fee to cover mailings and hours
associated with the abatement.
Attachment 2
Violation Founded Unfounded Total Founded Unfounded Total Founded Unfounded Total Founded Unfounded Total
COMPLAINT FREQUENCY KEY
H= 20+ complaints per year
M=10-20 complaints per year
L= Less than 10 complaints per year
NOT VIOLATIONS UNDER CURRENT CODE
Average # of
Complaints
Per Year
Exterior Property
Maintenance Code
Council Workshop June 15, 2021
Goals
Goals of proposed ordinance
Public safety
Healthy living conditions
General community welfare
Consolidation of code sections
Clearer regulations to help citizens understand code requirements
Eliminate violations in a timely manner
Complaint Process
First step is to investigate the complaint to determine if there is a violation. If
not a violation, we let the complainant know there is no violation.
If there is a violation, staff issues a notice of violation and timeframe for
correction(no citation is issued at this time)
Total of 704 complaints over the last four years. 524 of those were violations (74%)
Internal policy is to send 3 notices of violation with a compliance deadline, with
the last notice sent by certified mail
Repeat offenders get fewer notices
If property owner fails to comply or has not agreed to an alternate compliance
schedule with staff, a citation may be issued
23 citations in last 4 years. 13 of those were to habitual violators (total of four owners and 13
citations)
Garbage
Receptacles at
Curb
The proposed
ordinance prohibits
garbage receptacles
from being kept on the
curb for longer than 24
hours
Currently applies to
rental properties
Avg. 5 complaints/year
on rental properties
Outdoor Storage of Garbage
Current ordinance requires garbage
to be kept in a hard water-tight
receptacle
Avg. 14 complaints/year over last 4
years
Outdoor Storage of Junk
Current ordinance
prohibits the outdoor
storage of items for
more than 72 hours
The proposed
ordinance changes the
timeframe to 48 hours
Avg. 23
complaints/year over
the last 4 years
Outdoor Storage
of Yard Waste
Current and proposed
ordinance allows yard
waste to remain on a
property for up to 7 days
Composting in
accordance with the Iowa
Code is exempted from
the 7-day timeframe
Avg. 13 complaints/year
over last 4 years
Stagnant
Water
‘Standing water that is
trapped and does not
circulate.’
Could add a timeframe
to allow rainwater to
dissipate after heavy
rain events.
Debris on Sidewalk
Proposed ordinance
prohibits debris from
being on a walk
Timeframe could be
added
ROW
Vegetation
Proposed ordinance limits
the height of vegetation in
the ROW to 12”, but does
not limit species
Alternatives
Increase max. height to 3’
Require a distance buffer
between curb/sidewalk
and vegetation
Exempt native vegetation
and stormwater through
permitting process
ROW
Encroachment
Current ordinance requires owners to maintain adjacent sidewalks and parkings
Adding measurements and clarification will help education and enforcement efforts
Proposing 10’ clearance above walks and 16’ above streets
Vegetation cannot encroach into the walk
Avg. 40 complaints/year over last 4 years
Dense Vegetation
Proposed ordinance prohibits dense vegetation
Could limit to just vegetation that impedes ingress/egress
Turf Grass
Proposed ordinance
prohibits turf grasses from
exceeding 12” in height
16 of the jurisdictions
surveyed regulate grass
height
Range from 6” to18”
maximum
The other 4 jurisdictions
regulate ‘dense growth’
or ‘rank growth’
Avg. 35 complaints/year
over the last four years on
non-rental properties
Dangerous Trees
Proposed ordinance
requires removal of
dangerous trees
Trees will be deemed
dangerous by City
Forester
They must present an
immediate danger to
people or property in
the public way
Excavations/Holes
Proposed ordinance
prohibits excavations
or holes from
remaining on a
property for more than
30 days
This does not include
egress window wells or
fire pits
Vacant Structures
The proposed ordinance requires vacant structures to be secured
Structural
Maintenance
Proposed ordinance requires
structures to be maintained
Free of holes
Chipping paint does not
dominate structure
Gutters and other
appurtenances secured
Graffiti
Graffiti means any marking, inscription, drawing,
picture, letter, number, symbol or other defacement
or other written communication, etched, scratched,
or made with spray paint, paint, ink, chalk, dye, or
similar substance, or in any manner, on any public or
private property, including, but not limited to,
streets, sidewalks, buildings, walls, bridges, fences, or
other structures which was made without the
consent and under the direction of the owner of such
property
Graffiti becomes a violation once it has been on the
property for 48 hours. After receiving a complaint,
staff will work with the owner toward removal
Junk Vehicles
Prohibited from remaining for more
than 48 hours in current ordinance
Very specific criteria to be deemed a
junked vehicle
Average 9 complaints per year over the
last 4 years
Current ordinance has provisions for
citing the owner and for removal of the
vehicle by the City
Survey of 20 other Iowa cities and only
5 regulated junked vehicles (all
allowed them for 48 hours, except one
that allows them only for 24 hours)
Junk Vehicle Exceptions
Current ordinance allows junked vehicles to
remain on a property if:
They are covered with a tight-fitting vehicle
cover
They are in a garage or shed
They are behind an ‘opaque wall at least 6’ in
height
On the property of an authorized salvage yard
Storage of Non-Junked
Vehicles
Current ordinance prohibits the storage of
non-junked vehicles for more than 15 days
with the same exceptions as junk vehicles
and one additional exception
Owners that are out of town for more than
15 days, but not exceeding 180 days
Of the 20 cities surveyed only one other city
regulated operable vehicles
The 15-day timeframe is nearly impossible
to enforce
Staff utilizes the outdoor storage section in
the Zoning Code that prohibits storage for
more than 72 hours
Recreational Vehicle Parking
Current ordinance allows 1 travel trailer, recreational vehicle, boat, or
boat trailer to be parked on an approved surface for up to 72 hours
behind the front yard setback as long as it is not being used for living
purposes
Avg. 2 complaints/per year over the last four years
Questions?
The proposed ordinance would limit garbage receptacles at the curb for up to 24 hours. Do you have
comments?
•too many variables involved here. What if the garbage service doesnt make it due to unforseen
circumstances.
•I think this should be extended to 48 or 72 hours. Emergencies do happen and having to run
home from the ER to take in a garbage can is ridiculous
•That’s ridiculous and unnecessary
•Yes, then enforce on downtown sidewalks on Kellogg as well.
•Please approve
•Yes, needs to happen.
•fair if it applies to all property owners
•Good ordinance but work with disabled and elderly.
•What if the resident is out of town?
•What about residents on vacation? Some garbage collectors are nice enough to pull our cans to
the road if we forget. If we are on vacation and didn't place then there we could be fined.
•No thanks, I don’t live in a HOA neighborhood for a reason :)
•I disagree. I live on a dead end and I never move my trash bin. It’s never caused issues. I think
this is an overstep.
•Great idea.
•Move up to 48 hours sometimes on holiday weeks they change the days of pick up without
notification so my trash says out until the next day on those holiday weeks
•Maybe 48 hours but 24 is not enough in case the garbage collectors are late
•This is potential issue during holiday weeks when some garbage providers do not schedule a
pickup schedule so it may be left out on regular day but not picked up until following day and
remain at curb until a homeowner returns from work.
•Not needed
•No
•This is completely ridiculous if it’s on MY a property.
•Sometimes when i am out of town, the garbage company gets my receptacle and leaves it on
the curb. They are being Iowa Nice. If i am not home to put it back, i would be in violation. I am
thankful for the workers going above and beyond.
•Yes
•Change to 48 hours, holidays and missed pick-up days happen often.
•This is ridiculous.
•Why does this matter? This is petty and causes no harm. This is negatively impactful to those
who have more than one job
•Who the hell are you to limit this. Do you have a disabled person living in your home? What if
they can’t get out there because their movement is limited that day? You would fine a person
with Parkinson’s for having mobility issues one day???
•You have more than enough to do, stop worrying about this crap.
•What if someone is going on vacation and doesn't want to attract vermin but will not be present
to remove the receptacle after its picked up?
Exterior Property Maintenance Code Online Comments
As of 10 am/Friday, June 11, 2021
ATTACHMENT #4
•Most of the time this is fine, but what happens if the garbage company delays your pickup
without letting you know.
•This is dumb and petty and a waste of time and energy, not to mention a petty funding grab by
the city. You're going to fine people for leaving their bin out too long? Shit happens and
sometimes people aren't home right away or forget. This is maybe the dumbest one on the list.
•Do not support.
•On rare occasion we've had our bin on the curb for more than a day when we've been out of
town and couldn't find someone to take it back up to the garage. I would hate to get a fine for
this.
•difficult to enforce leaves a LOT of room for discriminatory targeting
•Please oppose any owner occupied housing maintenance code. We all live differently and have
different standards, maintenance codes DO NOT promote diversity and inclusion and the poor
are often targets of codes like this. The last thing the City of Ames needs to do is police
homeowners, passing any part of an owner occupied maintenance code will open the door to
expanding this power in the future. Please vote no.
•too restrictive. The time is too short
•I think this is a great proposal
•Seriously, who hasn’t left town Thursday and left trash can on curb for a few days. Always happy
if a neighbor pulls can up to garage. This proposal would create a situation where someone
turns me in and I get a fine or have to appeal? This is nuts.
•24 hours is not enough time.
•It doesn’t matter- it’s never caused an issue before.
•This is an unreasonable expectation considering people may be ill, suffering from a disability, on
vacation, or have any of many other valid reasons not to get the canister brought back to the
house right away.
•This is micromanaging and absurd on top of being narrow minded and discriminatory.
•Yes - 24 hours feels far too restrictive and militant...I would think 48 hours. Sometimes if I know
I am to work late, I put the garbage out in the morning on the day before, and can't bring it in
until the following evening.
•Hope I never am sick or leave town on garbage day
•I would be more lenient and go with 48 hrs
•I think this is an overreach and excessive. Further, it ties up enforcement personnel with
triviata.
•I support this
•Enforce existing codes on landlords
•Enforce existing codes on large landlord companies
•This only makes sense if the city also limits receptacles being at the curb in each neighborhood
to one day of the week. I would support this if only Mondays were Garbage days neighborhood
wide. This is illogical in this city which has 5 companies pick up garbage, each on their own days.
•24 hours doesn't seem like enough time. Is this even necessary? What problems are really
happening because of the trash cans?
•this is ableist
•Eh
• How big of a problem is this? It seems like it would be more trouble to regulate and fine for this
when usually people get their garbage back from the curb unless they’re out of town.
• If you care about this non-issue go live in an HOA
• Why? Is this really a problem?
• This is harmful to the low income and punitive.
• Petty and unnecessary
• What is the justification for this? Do we have a problem with trash cans blowing over and
getting garbage everywhere? Are we going to require they be in the garage like an HOA does?
What about those without garages? Should I keep it at the end of my driveway but just on my
side instead of at the curb just to spite this ridiculous proposal?
• Please provide scientific research showing that this is detrimental to the health and safety of the
community.
• This seems like an aesthetic choice and not a choice that will help anyone. Who is this hurting?
Why is it bad? It feels like more rules just because someone was upset about someone else's
garbage and not worth an entire new enforcement
• 48 hours sounds reasonable.
• Should be increased to 48 hours to allow garbage pick-up if the company missed garbage day.
• Yes, this seems like a moneymaker for the city. People leave town and will put out trash the day
before and maybe bring back the day after, to me 72 hours is more reasonable. I could see
ensuring that the garbage receptacle is not on the street/ROW and must be on driveway or
'parrking' area between street and sidewalk.
• No
• Unnecessary. Many places have HOA's that cover this, and it's not the cities job to heavily police
stuff like this
• Language should be added that trash receptacle lids need to be firmly secured when trash is left
at the curb. Too often, receptacles are filled to overflowing and lids are not secured. The same
should apply to dumpsters.
• I'm in favor of this
• I have lived in a place that did this and it was horrible. I have a job that I often leave home well
before garbage pick up day and come home 36-48 hours later. This ordinance would cause me
to have to skip trash days due to work or possibly get a city citation. I never leave it out for
weeks at a time or allow it to blow through my property to neighbors. I would say make limits
such as it can’t stay out week to week, but don’t limit people from setting out trash a day or two
early before leaving for vacation or due to their job.
• This is silly. If a neighbor doesn’t like a garbage can left at the street, they should just ask the
neighbor if they can help to push it back to the house.
• I’m mobility impaired. It occasionally takes a couple days to get garbage can back to garage.
• I think that is reasonable for all. That said, I live on a street that has a few short streets that
come off the main street to a few houses. Would those secondary streets be included?
• 48 hours would be better for those who might be gone one day
• I place my cans out before working my 3 12 hour shifts and sometimes forget to bring them up
until my day off. This ordinance doesn't help anything.
• Ridiculous. Unless they can is out there for literal weeks on end, who cares? And who would you
spend tax dollars to enforce this? Bullshit.
• Make it 48. Many set their trash containers on the curb just before leaving town.
• If I have to travel I sometimes have to put the trash out a day ahead of time and then have a
friend bring it back for me. It may take 48 for this process to happen. In this day and age of
unpredictability it seems harsh to put limits on something as simple as trash pickup.
• Some people would need to leave their trash out before taking a weekend trip. An empty trash
can on the curb shouldn't be a concern of the city.
• Additional time may be nice for people who rely on neighbors or friends bringing them in when
on vacation. 48 hours seems more appropriate.
• You have failed to mention that the new ordinance would also require that it be kept in the
backyard or inside when not at the curb. This is unnecessary burden and purely for aesthetics
and not health or safety as claimed. This is BS.
• I oppose this and feel it should be removed from the rental housing code.
• What if the homeowner is gone and the garbage service pulls the can to empty it without the
homeowners knowledge or permission?
• Seems like a needlessly harsh timeframe
• Did you ever consider that possibly the people who do this are elderly, handicapped, or possibly
have a reason for why they are not prompt about moving their garbage receptacles? Also,
sometimes, the garbage trucks change the date of pickup, which can result in confusion and the
receptacle being left at the street for more than 24 hours.
• Classist
• No comments
• What about alleyways? In our neighborhood, a majority of homeowners keep their garbage can
at the end of the alleyway. This is not visible to the street. I would suggest that placement of
trash receptacles in an alleyway does not apply to this ordinance.
• Vote yes.
• It's hard for some people eith movement issued to move the trash bins, as long as they are a
safe distance from thr curb I don't see a problem with leaving them there.
• I agree
• A huge overreach for the city. Some people put out garbage before the leave on a trip and then
have a friend pull it back in. I know we've done that in this city since 1990, never was an issue.
Not an issue now.
• Should be at least 48 hours
• You are expecting us all to live in a gated community of old white people who have the time and
interest in tattling on their neighbors. All of these policies are threats to hard working middle
and lower class individuals. If I wanted this I could live in a gated retirement community.
• Reasonable
• NO and Why should it matter if my trash can is on at my curb for longer than 24 hours.
• If I go on vacation for the weekend and the trash can is out for 3 days, is that really a problem?
24 hours is too tight of a window
• This is ridiculously short. What about people who are traveling for even a few days? They would
have to arrange for someone to move it or face a fine
• In general, I don't see this as a widespread problem. It will penalize people who put their
garbage out before a leaving for a couple days, older or disabled people who rely on others for
assistance (sometimes not daily), and in general they are not an eyesore. It creates an
environment for vendettas to be fought through the city and wastes city time/money.
• This isn’t okay and also sounds like we would have to pay employees to go around collecting
trash cans all day because of forgetful college kids or perhaps the elderly or disabled...not worth
the money for our city. It’s not been a problem that I have observed and I have loved here 28
years.
• I’d suggest 48 hours.
• Support
• Why restrict these even on rental locations? What does the city propose if a occupier goes on
vacation, or becomes ill?
• Last week I put out our garbage on the required day and it was not picked up due to Memorial
Day. This would require me to put the receptacle back and then the next day it would not be
picked up the following day. I propose 48 hours to allow for idiots like myself who forget
holidays.
• You need to be more direct if these are FULL or EMPTY. Some people go on vacation and leave
their trash to be picked up while away.
• 24 hours is too short. Life happens, emergencies happen and sometimes the can gets left out for
longer than ideal. Three days is more reasonable.
• Not as important as other issues
• Not a bad idea in theory but there is no way this this would be enforced it's a waste of time and
resources.
• This can be managed by HOA. Should not be city wide.
• Fair
• Does the receptacle in question impede the flow of traffic in any way? If not,!then that’s a
stupid thing to make a rule for.
• Strongly disagree
• This is ridiculous. God for it a trash can sits out for 2 days because a family is out of town for the
weekend.
• 24 hours is not a reasonable time limit. This will punish people with disabilities, busy working
parents, and anyone else who happens to be on vacation.
• This places undue hardship on residents who may be gone on a trip or have limited mobility. It
should not be approved.
• Sometimes I put trash to curb before a short trip out of town. If I’m not able to get my trash
disposed of that creates a whole other problem.
• This is unreasonable.
• I don't have strong comments or feelings about this.
• 24 hours is maybe too short if people are traveling. Maybe 48 hrs.
• Absurd. People often forget that trash pickup is pushed back a day due to holiday. So they can't
leave it out for the next day? Someone puts their trash out at night for morning pick up, then
leaves early in the morning for a day and isn't home to pull the can in that evening. So what?
• no
• Who is going to police this??? I don't want my tax dollars to pay for someone to go around and
harass homeowners because their garbage can is sitting by the curb. Rediculous.
• Progress would be to place them at the curbs permanently.
• So if someone is going to be out of town the day before garbage pick up they will no longer be
allowed to take their garbage to the curb before they leave and take it back in when they get
home? What if a disabled person relies on a helper to bring in their garbage receptacle and the
helper forgets or is unable to come by just to bring in/or take out the garbage? This seems like a
bad idea to me.
• No
• I assume that the city would not get involved unless there are repeated violations. Single
violations would seem to be a complete waste of city oversight or enforcement!
• This is stupid. Holidays. Oh, they decided to not pick up my trash on the normal day and now I
have to bring it in and take it back out. Oh and this is also made to punish students that don’t
have room to bring them in.
• How would this impact our elderly residents or those with mobility issues that may be relying on
help from others?
• That is ridiculous. Vacations?? Emergency?? What possible relevance could the location of a
receptacle have to anyone other than the owner?
• What if you go out of town?
• That's stupid. Some people have no other place to put it that isnt in the way.
• Seems reasonable I guess
• What if you're snowed out of town, or the garbage people change their schedule?
• Why? More than once I have had garbage companies come late for unforeseen reasons. 4 days,
maybe, but 24 hours. Put can out the night before, go to work, work late and get back to a
potential fine?
• This seems to be entirely unecessary and somewhat arbitrary. What if the homeowner is out of
town for several days, and by virtue of that is suddenly in violation of city ordinance?
• Seriously? No. This is stupid.
• There's nothing unseemly about a trash can by a curb. It is a very common sight.
• Only concern is the fact we put out our trash on Friday mornings and may travel for a weekend.
We would put them away Sunday evening but would technically be in violation of this
ordinance. Extend to 48-72 hours do take travel into account?
• Is this a pressing issue? Are you going to have people driving around all the time timing how
long garbage cans are out? Seems like a waste
• That's great if you never travel during the week or work odd shifts.
• Probably not necessary
• This is too short a time period and like many of these proposed policies invites a significant
increase in enforcement costs
• If it maintains upright, what’s the difference
• I don’t want this enforced. Sometimes we need to place it on the curb ahead of time if we’re
going out of town.
• Does this apply to after garbage pick up? If so, then it's probably reasonable. However, what if I
have to take my garbage out on a Tuesday morning for a Wednesday pick up, but don't get
home from a trip until Thursday morning?
• I would move it to 48 hours to be in line with #2.
• Why does this matter? Who does this harm?
• Why? This seems unnecessary and not a real problem.
The proposed ordinance would prohibit junk, garbage, and yard waste from being left on the exterior
property for more than 48 hours. Do you have any comments?
• This isnt unreasonable but there should be a warning first.
• If you are renovating then you often don’t have an option
• Yes, please enforce.
• Please approve, 48 hours might be too short as people work and might be working on their yard
on weekends
• Absolutely!
• Storm events should be the only exclusion as downed limbs/trees could be considered yard
waste.
• Again, what if the resident is out of town?
• No thanks, I don’t live in a HOA neighborhood for a reason :)
• I don’t know what junk is. What is the definition? Yard waste includes compost?
• Great idea.
• Should be allowed until garbage day
• This will inhibit homeowners that may only have assistance during a weekend period to get
things transported to the curb for potential free to anyone but left so if no one picks up they
would have it still on curb for garbage pickup day that may be mid week.
• Too vague and overly invasive.
• Definitions are still too ambiguous as the limitations of one man's junk and another's treasure.
Many person's have upcycled materials to be used as art, but others may find such use to be
junk or garbage. Further, seasonal gardeners utilize leave piles to protect their plants over the
winter and provide shelter to wildlife. Are such actions permitted? Further, are compost heaps
permitted with yard waste over 48 hours? Unfortunately yard waste will not compost in that
short time.
• Again- my property- no one else’s business
• This entirely subjective and will not be equitable
• Who decides what is junk? My children gather things and make treasures that may be
considered junk to some. It brings them joy. We don’t have much money and they are finding
joy and creativity with what they do have or find.
• Yes
• Need to state 'excessive' and would make it a week or month for the timeline.
• Define "junk" and "garbage" much more specifically. Define "yard waste" and ensure that
beneficial composting/mulching is not affected (for example, it is beneficial to native insects to
allow fallen leaves to remain on the ground).
• This is ridiculous. I feel like having a former architect for a mayor is driving these snooty,
discrimitory property rules
• How do you define this? This is unenforceable and will only hurt residents who are lower
income.
• If you want to implement this you need to implement city wide yard waste pick up. Instead you
make us all drive out of town go get rid of it and that is not possible when you work a real job
• You have more than enough to do, stop worrying about this crap
• I keep my garbage can outside so I don't like this.
• Little confused about this one. Would this prohibit the containers sitting outside? Would grass
clippings on the sidewalk or driveway?
• This will place additional burden on homeowners who are renovating and or doing heavy
maintenance.
• I could see this being a front yard issue but there should be more leeway for back yards. We are
currently doing some upgrades in our basement and have a small pile of construction garbage in
our back yard. The project will take a few more weeks and as soon as it's done we'll load it up
and take it to the Boone landfill. It would be a waste of time and money to have to take partial
loads every two days. There needs to be more grace time given.
• Please oppose any owner occupied housing maintenance code. We all live differently and have
different standards, maintenance codes DO NOT promote diversity and inclusion and the poor
are often targets of codes like this. The last thing the City of Ames needs to do is police
homeowners, passing any part of an owner occupied maintenance code will open the door to
expanding this power in the future. Please vote no.
• Who defines junk, garbage and yard waste?
• Who defines junk? How could this possibly be enforceable?
• Great
• This is a much needed rule. An unoccupied/owned home has been being used as a junkyard for
several years now. When the derecho hit, computer parts, old tires, grills, etc. went flying.
Electricity crews were impeded by the hazardous broken glass and metal meaning we were
without power for over a week. Rats occupy this property and have come onto ours. Reports to
the city go nowhere because there is no viable enforcement.
• One mans trash is another mans treasure. Another crazy proposal.
• not enough time for large objects
• What about Construction sites? It’s not doable
• 48 hours is an arbitrary number and there are numerous factors why it would take a family or
business longer than that to remove waste.
• This is far too open to interpretation and will cause so many petty neighbor calls that amount to
nothing but paperwork and irritated citizens.
• I'm curious what constitutes 'junk' and 'yard waste'- is open composting included? They city has
really pushed home and city composting in the last few years, it feels like a step backwards to
prohibit someone composting their sticks and grass clippings because they sit for more than 48
hours.
• I would need to see a better definition on what is considered junk? And yard waste?
• Define exterior. My backyard of my home is my business.
• Seems excessive and vague (open to interpretation)
• This also seems like excessive intrusion, perhaps a five day period to allow for practical real life
situations.
• I support this
• Enforce existing codes on landlords
• Enforce existing codes on large landlord companies
• Mandate trash haulers have the ability to pick everything up when requested within 48 hours at
REASONABLE charges, and ok. Otherwise, this hurts low-income homes.
• How does this apply to compost piles or hugelcultur supplies? Those are considered yard waste?
What about firewood piles? Are these all yard waste?
• disagree about yard waste. not raking until late spring helps birds and pollinators. Also leaves
fall every day in the fall. People would be expected to rake every 2 days? If talking about small
branches, many save fallen branches for kindling
• the city of ames is not an HOA
• Thats fine
• This is too vague and too short of a cure period.
• Is the city going to have a free yard waste day every 48 hours? No? Then don’t get bent out of
shape about my small pile of sticks
• Who gets to decide what junk or garbage is? Is my chair garbage just because my neighbor
doesn't like the color? Seems petty. Why no yard waste? What harm is that doing to anyone?
• This is harmful to the low income and punitive. What about compost piles? Yard waste is natural
and leaf litter and grass clippings are good for the soil biom.
• Reasonable storage should be permitted. E.g. tidy storage of what some would consider “junk”
but still holds significant value, stores neatly in back yard.
• Agree
• What is the justification for this? Are we not allowed to keep yard waste? The city has no good
way to dispose of it and I personally compost and use hugelcultur with my yardwaste. Many of
my neighbors compost their leaves and grass clippings - would that not be allowed? For what
reason? It is offensive to someone but great for the environment?
• Please provide scientific research showing that this is detrimental to the health and safety of the
community. What detriment is yard waste? What detriment is a non functioning vehicle? Who
defines junk?
• What constitutes this? What is "junk"? I've also had property managers tell me to leave yard
waste out for them to collect, but what if they do not collect within 48 hours? Will they be in
trouble or the renter? How often is this actually a problem to make a code?
• Define junk. Such an arbitrary word. Also the ability to remove yard waste in 48 hours in
unreasonable for those of us who choose to plant in ways that create wildlife habitat, support
pollinators, and keep excessive water run off from the storm sewers. I thought all of these were
initiatives of the city of Ames, no?
• Ames needs more options for yard waste disposal.
• Will there be free year round drop offs provided?
• Junk/Garbage -- slippery slope for definition of what is junk. Garbage seems like an OK
definition. Also, yard waste, if the city has 24/7 yard waste free dropoff, then I wouldn't be
adverse, but often there are few options. If we can burn it, then fine.
• Define junk
• This definition is too loose, it leaves a lot of wiggle room
• What is considered junk?
• 48 hours is too long. I live in South Campustown, where plastic cups, beverage cans, and food
packaging routinely get dumped on lawns. Wind and rain quickly picks up the trash and moves
it into the streets, gutters, and watershed. Then it becomes a public problem, not just an issue
of what people are allowed to do on private property.
• I'm in favor of this
• How is junk, garbage, and yard waste going to be defined, and by whom?
• What about yard waste and garbage that are in appropriate container waiting pick up.
• I would imagine that after a major storm there would be exceptions. Some items may look like
junk to someone, but not be considered by junk by the property owner.
• Disagree with yard waste as sometimes home improvement projects take weeks but aid in the
aesthetics of the neighborhood afterwards
• After gardening during the weekend and then going back to work it sometimes takes more than
48 hours to get any sort of waste taken care of. Especially if you don't have the right vehicle for
transport.
• See above comment
• Two days isn't always enough time for residents to be able to schedule trash pickup. In addition,
the definition of "junk" is arbitrary and creates value-based conflict between residents and the
city.
• What is the reasoning for this? I oppose this.
• I oppose this and feel it should be removed from the rental housing code. Things like pavers and
other outdoor supplies are not "junk." They are designed to be outside.
• How does this square with composting programs? Composting often includes yard waste. Does
this ordinance distinguish between yard waste that is contained and not contained? And does
this apply to the front yard only? Do you really want to try to regulate what people have in their
backyard, down to that one broken chair that could be junk or could be a future trellis or work
of art?
• Seems like a needlessly harsh timefram
• Please define junk/garbage. Who is the authority on what is “garbage/junk”? Sometimes people
are making a good faith effort to remove the so-called “junk/garbage/yard waste” from their
property, but these things can take time. For instance, we took down a tree that had been
damaged by derecho, well after the city cleanup time frame had passed. The delay in the tree
take down was caused by the inability to get a tree service contractor in a timely fashion due to
them being swamped with jobs. For an extra fee, the contractor would haul the wood away,
however, we felt that we could give the wood to someone who wanted it and not be
contributing to excess trash in the dump. So, we offered the wood on Marketplace and
someone said they would come get it. Unfortunately, they never showed. The wood waited on
the edge of our property over the winter, and we were finally able to give it to someone who
could use it. It was recycled, not wasted. For a community that is supposedly so concerned
about the environment and conservation, etc., the policies proposed and enacted by this
government/city council very often achieve exactly the opposite of those stated goals. See the
Ioway Creek tree destruction for a prime example of complete disrespect for nature,
erosion/soil management and protection of the environment.
• Classist
• No comments
• Yes. I believe there should be an exception in the instance of massive storms. After the derecho
there is no way we could have feasibly cleaned all waste from our property in 48 hours when we
did not even have electricity.
• Vote yes.
• Some times the trash guy doesn't pick up what I leave out for him.
• This is not practical when people are working on large projects that can't be completed in a
couple days. Additionally, who determines the difference between "junk" and belongings stored
outdoors?
• Depends on the definition of junk and yard waste. I have a small pile of branches in my back
yard, inside my fence. Not an eyesore, but it would fall under this ordinance.
• Junk is not definable, it's subjective and open for abuse
• Define junk? Define yard waste? You mean the tree limb that came down in a storm while we
were out of town? It was there for more than 48 hours. Yet again, another over reach of the
city. police those who truly leave junk and are a huge offender and leave the rest of us alone. .
• I live next to a hoarder and I contacted the city and she sort of cleaned it up. I’m in full support
of this ordinance
• Define yard waste.
• You are expecting us all to live in a gated community of old white people who have the time and
interest in tattling on their neighbors. All of these policies are threats to hard working middle
and lower class individuals. If I wanted this I could live in a gated retirement community. This is
basically punishing poor people for being poor: its discrimination.
• For those who work during operating hours of the resource recovery plant, 48 hours will likely
not be enough time if they generate debris early in the week and cannot remove it until the
weekend.
• NO, Again, most trash pick ups are 0nce a week and the city itself would have been in violation
of this during the derecho
• What about remodels? 48 hours is not appropriate for those who are trying to upgrade their
house or landscaping.
• 48 hours is a tight window. Give people more time to clean up their messes.
• Restrict it to a square footage area. Some people don't have garages or sheds and can't afford
multiple trips to remove stuff during projects.
• I understand that this is a problem for some residences, but it could also be problematic for the
average person. What constitutes "junk"? Is a neighbor's horrible "art" junk? They don't think
so. What about leaving larger items at the curb to be picked up by the city (following regulations
for doing so), but leaving those for more than 48 hours? Is it that terrible? Again, penalizing
older/disabled people, but also those that are over extended, adding additional stress. I don't
know how you would codify "an excessive amount of junk" or "enough garbage to be a hazard",
but this seems very restrictive.
• I have had to keep bags of leaves through the Winter because the trash company that I used
quit picking it up before all my leaves were off the trees! Junk and garbage might be waiting fir
the next trash pickup, so give them a week.
• Support
• While understandable, these ordanace immediately undoes any composting initiative, as those
rely on yard waste, and no provision is provided to rememdy this fact. Until such a time as the
council improves the wording of such a proposal, it should be ignored (including for rental
properties)
• Agreed, if there are more free yard waste days. This Williston ate against low income people.
• This is rather ambiguous. There are circumstances where people are doing landscaping and it
may take more than 48 hours.
• Good.
• This seems unclear. We keep our large branches in piles until the city holds a free brush/leaf
days. We compost (which the city encourages to keep refuse out of the waste stream) almost
everything else. Paying the garbage company to pick them up is costly and, because we don’t
do it often, cumbersome to arrange. I am also wondering where the city code regarding
composting is located . It seems you might want to somehow reference any of those rules
here..
• 48 hours seems too short
• This would need more specific requirements and places an additional burden on those who
can't afford to take things to a junk yard. Especially large items. If there were more free disposal
days or a campaign to alert the public to free options for disposal that might be a better
approach.
• Unreasonable. Yard waste for 48 hours? That's ridiculous.
• Some junk is priceless
• Who are we entrusting the sacred duty of setting the definitions of ‘junk,’ ‘garbage’ and ‘yard
waste,’ respectively? Does this person deserve that much power? Do any of us?
• Strongly disagree.
• Yes, mind your business and let people live their lives. Imposing these laws are only hurting the
already hurting! Rich people who can afford movers, haulers, trucks, friends to help, etc. Dont
have to worry a out these issues. This will only hurt those who are already struggling!
• This is pretty subjective.
• This would disproportionately impact lower income members of the community.
• This is unfairly demanding. I think 1 month is more reasonable. Some people don't have the
funds to pay for other people to do yard and construction work for them. If people want these
kinds of restrictions they should move to a gated community.
• That’s reasonable
• Again, unreasonable.
• As someone who lives next to a property that leaves junk and garbage out for
weeks/months/years and have seen the resulting impacts (rodents, obstacles blowing onto
sidewalk/road, concern about contaminents leaching into ground, standing water, etc.) I am
very supportive of this ordinance or an ordinance that would allow for recourse when there is
consistent disregard. I would like to see a more comprehensive definition of junk though so that
everyone is aware of what meets this criteria.
• Large yard waste can take time to complete with weather and scheduling. People who can't
afford to hire might need to space parts of it out. This one is bad.
• 48 hours means someone cannot put large objects out for trash pickup more than 2 days in
advance. Not everyone has the luxury of free time ahead of time. No composting yard waste?
No trash can?
• Maybe if that is an eyesore in front of the house, but I am against this for the back yard. I have a
pile of small branches, raspberry cuttings and dead plant stalks in my back yard, where it does
not bother anybody and will eventually decay. Are you trying to outlaw that?
• Do you recall the Derecho? Things happen to individuals as well as communities, and sometimes
there is simply nobody available for cleanup in “48 hours”.
• Again, who is going to police this? What a waste of tax dollars. Instead, why don't you have
cleanup days were you go around and pick up waste???
• One mans junk is another mans treasure. Who decides?
• So then residents need to plan all yard maintenance within 48 hours of garbage pick up? As long
as it is being cleared weekly it shouldn’t be an issue.
• This needs to have some qualifying statement, what about compost? What about gardens?
What if it’s behind my solid fence and mind your own business? If it is not somehow harming my
immediate neighbors F off.
• I see a problem with the yard waste (particularly branches) not accumulating over 48 hours. My
neighborhood has a number of large older trees. On most days, I will find a branch that has
fallen down. According to this regulation, I would need to make a trip to the yard waste location
at least 3-4 times each week to avoid violation instead of accumulating them until there is
enough to justify a trip. I don’t know your definition of junk but I am reminded that “One
person's junk may be another person's treasure”.
• Another way to punish students. Who defines junk?
• How would this apply to art work that others might not view the same way the resident does?
• Could we start by enforcing littering laws?
• Exterior as in anywhere in the yard or in the yard facing the street? Sometimes it takes more
than 2 days to trim trees and brush and then find a way to get the yard waste taken somewhere.
We also don't have a garage so the garbage cans have to sit outside next to the driveway.
• What about compost piles?
• I oppose
• Not well defined.
• Yard waste should not include any compost materials or mulch.
• Make it a week not a day
• A week seems reasonable.
• This presumes that people have the means to move junk frequently. There are plenty of cases
where people have ongoing remodeling projects that last longer than 2 days, and which result in
the accumulation of junk, garbage, and yard waste. Should these people be required to stop
their work mid-stride to haul junk away? What if they don't have ready access to a suitable
vehicle for this?
• At least make the duration of time longer. If garbage is blowing away, or smells incredibly bad,
that's a problem. You might need to think about the difference between abled bodied and
people with physical limitations and limited availability of home health aides. Also, prohibiting
yard waste encroaches on people who compost. Does exterior mean anywhere outside of a
building? If it's not leaking or toxic... and just an eye sore, I'd dislike living across from an
extreme example of this, but as long as it's not hazardous (greasy fuel soaked rags, lead,
asbestos, leaking oil or battery acid), it's their land. Would it be ok if it was behind a fence?
Maybe add some about excessive amounts of junk garbage and yard waste. A little is ok, a lot is
a problem. I use leaves as mulch to over winter outside plants.
• When making arrangements with a local garbage company, it can take 3-7 days to make
arrangements for yard waste or large items to be picked up. If I do some major yard work on a
Saturday, Aspen would agree to pick up Friday which is six days. Allow a week for pick up?
• If it is in a receptacle or tucked away on the side of a building, I think it's not a big deal. We all
have to put our junk somewhere.
• So if we do yard work the day after trash collection, we're supposed to store it in the garage
until the next trash day? Brilliant.
• Probably not necessary
• how do you define "junk"
• How does this affect composting? It seem that it would prohibit one’s ability to home compost.
• "2) These terms, ""junk"" ""garbage"" and ""yard waste"" need further clarification and
defintion. As stated here, this seems to imply that if I don't get my leaves raked within 48 hours,
I would be in violation, and that is both unreasonable and unduly punitive to anyone who works
full time or is balancing work, child/elder care, is disabled, elderly, etc"
• What about rental properties that are not currently held to this standard?
• This is incredibly vague and should not be enforced. If I wanted to live in an HOA I would choose
to do so.
• ok
• Agreed.
• Who decides what is what here?
• Why 48 hours? Seems such a short period of time. If it was there for weeks. then it's a problem.
• Yes. Yard waste should be removed from #2. Ames has a yard waste problem which it fails to
truly address. The general population has no reasonable way of economically and continually
disposing of tree waste. Garbage haulers require 3 foot length bundles which is a pretty
impossible task. Citizens have to wait for one or two yard waste days a year and use whatever
vehicle they own to move the yard waste. Those that can't move their branches to a waste site
buy fire pits and burn relentlessly. Ames needs two curb days per neighborhood a year for tree
waste - there's just no way around it. Yard waste other than tree waste can be accommodated
by garbage haulers using bags and while costly, is more doable. If you pass #2 as written, there
will be more fire pits and air pollution. It will negatively impact quality of life. Tree waste pickup
should be provided by the city.
The proposed code would prohibit stagnant water from remaining on a property. Do you have any
comments?
• define stagnant water? what about a flood.
• What allowances will be made for plumbing issues...I had one recently that took 5 plumbers and
2 months to repair!!
• Perfect.
• Not sure what this would all included need more info. If talking low spots in yard that could cost
a lot to landscape to repair issues. If taking pots, bckets etc. sitting outside holding water that is
an easy fix
• Needed, mosquitos
• No thanks, I don’t live in a HOA neighborhood for a reason :)
• No comment
• Great idea.
• My neighbor collects rain water for his plants is that allowed of does he have to remove his
container?
• If such water accumulates due to heavy runoff from neighboring properties will the cause also
be addressed
• How will this be policed? Some towns search every tire or sidewalk crack for signs of stagnant
water. What limitations to the amount of water found or policing areas exist?
• Do we have a stagnant water issue in Ames??
• How do you measure stagnation? How often do you check?
• Can there be a way to help those that may need it? This should be a helpful community. Come
together, not judge.
• No
• Remove. Landscaping issues happen
• Define stagnant water more precisely. This is too vague.
• Where is this an issue?
• How are you defining stagnant water? Does a small pool about 5 in in diameter count? Are we
supposed to go out and check for puddles? How are we supposed to get rid of the puddles? You
didn’t think this one through
• You have more than enough to do, stop worrying about this crap
• How are people supposed to address it if theres a divot in the sidewalk? Pay thousands of
dollars they don't have to fix it? I'd rather just pull the concrete up.
• Why is Ames creating a city-wide HOA?
• better not be any puddles in ames parks or parking lots...
• Please oppose any owner occupied housing maintenance code. We all live differently and have
different standards, maintenance codes DO NOT promote diversity and inclusion and the poor
are often targets of codes like this. The last thing the City of Ames needs to do is police
homeowners, passing any part of an owner occupied maintenance code will open the door to
expanding this power in the future. Please vote no.
• how is this defined? What about intentionally designed storm water easements and related
areas intended to hold surface water?
• Also how is this enforceable? Many people have properties with uneven ground that will create
stagnant water after storms. If they can't afford to have the ground evened out, what will
happen?
• Great
• Who hasn’t had standing water in downtown Ames. Global climate change has created
unusually large rain events. Don’t fine me for this
• important for public health
• It's not the government's business to dictate the appropriateness of whether or not someone
has an area of pooled water on their property. This is insane government overreach.
• This is an overstep of a homeowner's right to their own property. A genuine health concern can
be addressed through other means.
• Again, needs better definitions? Would this include a bird bath?
• Will the city properties count too
• This seems overly vague. My birdbath could be considered stagnant.
• I support this
• Enforce existing codes on landlords
• Enforce existing codes on large landlord companies
• Will the city abide by their own code when there's flooding?
• Seems unnecessary
• would this include covered rainbarrels and cisterns? If so then no, I disapprove of this being
prohibited
• are you trying to drive young professionals out of the city?
• makes sense
• Wouldn’t a public education campaign with reminders to dump stagnant water be more
respectful?
• Do you plan on arresting the water?
• Why have this? Is this really a problem?
• Does this mean bird baths are no longer allowed? That would be a shameful unintended
consequence.
• Just why?
• Why tho. Is this really an issue?
• Agree
• I don't see this as a current problem.
• Please provide scientific research showing that this is detrimental to the health and safety of the
community.
• Needs more in-depth information. What constitutes standing water? In a bucket? A puddle? A
pool? A birdbath? How big or small? A pond?
• Vague. How will you define that. What about bird baths?
• In what volume?
• Wetland areas need specific exclusion.
• How much? Is there a yardage, volumetric measure? big rain on hard soil could cause a few
days of stagnant water. In open containers? What about a bird bath structure?
• No
• I'm not allowed to have a pond? That's silly
• I'm in favor of this
• I can’t think of any properties that have stagnant water. Is this really a problem?
• Yes. Define stagnant water. Wading pools.
• This seems reasonable.
• Disagree when its due to the need or repairs or other issues
• This is vague. What constitutes stagnant water? A pool? A bird bath?
• Mother Nature gives you water, but the City of Ames wants to fine you for it. Bullshit.
• How is a person to do this.
• Some stagnant water also offers ecological benefits for wildlife. How do you distinguish rain
barrels and other conservation measures?
• I don't see this being a problem that Ames faces.
• I oppose this and do not feel this is a problem.
• Again, are there broader specifications or do you really want to regulate every quart of water in
a backyard birdbath?
• Do you/the complainers ever offer help to these property owners rather than trying to beat
them with a stick? Again, the failure to define terms is appalling. How long can the water remain
before being classified as stagnant? Is there any grace for times of heavy rain/flooding? Does
this apply to ditches? For example, for years the city/county has failed to construct the ditches
along South Duff in such a way that the rainwater actually flows as it is supposed to. Who will be
penalized in this case? Does a property owner who has to put up with the city/county’s failure
to properly construct a ditch for drainage get the privilege of citing/fining the city/county in
return?Another example, the city allowed a large developer to build an apartment building
adjacent to my property. In addition to building their property up a few feet, and not forcing
them to obey the stated guidelines about how far their building should be from my property
line, the city also allowed them to build a cistern that is completely inadequate for the heavy
rains that we sometimes receive. When this happens, all their excess rain overflows the cistern,
and runs off onto my property where it sits until it can be absorbed. This would be completely
preventable, if the apartment building had been forced to hook into the city sewer system or
build an adequate cistern, but they seem to be exempt from respecting their neighbors and
following city codes. Are you seriously planning to penalize me for my neighbor’s runoff?
• This is how we get mosquitos. Landlords should be responsible. Homeowners should be made
aware.
• No comments
• I understand where this rule is coming from, but I believe it is too vague. Specifically, after large
rain events, certain landscaping options that help promote water infiltration into gardens (ex:
swales) may hold water for a period of 1 to 2 days depending on soil type. If you look at the CDC
report on mosquitos
(https://www.cdc.gov/dengue/resources/factsheets/mosquitolifecyclefinal.pdf) It is shown that
mosquitos take at least one day to hatch, at least five days to pupate, and at least two more
days to emerge as adults for a total of 8 days for a body of water to be a source of mosquitos. I
think any rule that Ames proposes should be scientifically founded and allow for temporary
surface water that dissipates within roughly 6-8 days which I believe is the vast majority of
cases.
• Vote yes.
• If it rains and there are puddles in my yard that won't dry up that is not my fault. Our garden
had a rain bucket to water the flowers as well, its well maintained and has insect needing over
it. It is not a hazard and shouldn't be treated as one.
• Needs more definition of stagnant. Bird bath??
• Rain barrel could be defined as stagnant
• Define stagnant water? Stagnant water was EVERYWHERE in 2010. EVERYWHERE! Is water in a
bird bath stagnant? Is a rain barrel stagnant? You already have rules in place for hoarding and
unkept properties. This policy is not needed nor wanted. Enforce the rules you have.
• Define stagnant water.
• You are expecting us all to live in a gated community of old white people who have the time and
interest in tattling on their neighbors. All of these policies are threats to hard working middle
and lower class individuals. If I wanted this I could live in a gated retirement community. This is
basically punishing poor people for being poor: its discrimination.
• Reasonable
• NO, Who is defining stagnant water and does this include rain barrels because the city promotes
these yet without regular rain they are stagnant water
• Bird baths? Small pools? What is your definition of stagnant?
• Citing people for puddles in their yards is overreach, if you don't mean puddles, word it so that it
clearly means larger areas
• What is stagnant water? My kid's toys in the yard gather water and they don't play with them
for days. Is that stagnant water? I get the idea behind this, and I hate mosquitoes/stench as
much as the next, but this also penalizes the same people (elderly/disabled/over-extended and
exhausted) who may not have time to make the rounds daily. There would have to be some
limits put here.
• This needs to exclude surface water drainiage easements where depending on rainfall water
may remain with homeowners being able to do nothing about it without interrupting the
drainage plan, example GW Carver/Bloomington/Almond Rd Area
• Good idea.
• Support
• How does the city propose to assist low income occupants with low lying areas on their property
that may pool water after rain? Without financial assistnace, the city is proposing to implement
a financial punishment for failure to have the finances to fill a depression.
• n/a
• Good.
• While commendable, this does seem difficult to enforce, Do bird baths count?.
• no opinion
• Unenforceable. ie puddles, cracks in pavement etc.
• How would you control this? I don't think this is a big problem we need to focus efforts on.
• Get freaking real!
• That sounds problematic in that it unfairly impacts properties with preexisting landscape
problems.
• I think this is good for mosquito control. This means no more kiddie pools, too.
• How is this enforceable? Will the city be providing residents to check oxygen level of water on
their property?
• Yes, mosquitos, rodents, and smell all accompany this.
• Maybe specify through articial means. Pooling on the lawn would be expensive to fix.
• So no birdbaths?
• I hope you are not trying to outlaw bird baths and small ponds.
• Who is going to police this??? Waste of tax dollars.
• Progress would be increasing surface water for insect and animal habitat.
• So anyone with an above ground pool, bird bath, rain puddle or septic issue that must be
addressed by professional will be in violation? I’m not sure this will improve quality of life in any
way.
• This needs to be quantified by quantity, standing water is a health risk but not in small amounts
(
• No one wants this. Some people can’t do anything about it.
• Would this eliminate pollinator gardens and other programs the city has created?
• Iowa is a wetland. If a puddle forms, are you planning to fine the Almighty?
• This is needed to control mosquitos
• I oppose
• So landscaped ponds would have to be torn out? What about bird baths? Have you really
considered what this entails?
• Does this include ponds? Wetlands? The term stagnant water is pretty vague? Also, is stagnant
water permitted at all times? At some point everyone would be in violation of this ordinance.
• I like this, but how would this be enforced? Do you mean gutters? Kiddie pools? Time duration?
Water features or water landscaping/koi ponds? For these instances is there any aquatic life
that eats mosquito larvae? A pile of tires accumulating water on any property is a problem.
Stagnant water treated with Mosquito Dunks or Bits would kill mosquitoes, but also any
beneficial insects (example: pollinators)? Need to think about whole ecosystem impact. I like the
intent of suppressing vector mosquito populations though. From this site: (
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC5198213/ ) "For example, Aedes aegypti
Linnaeus is the vector of viruses causing important human diseases including yellow fever,
dengue, chikungunya, and Zika. The preference of this species to oviposit in natural and artificial
containers has facilitated the development of Ae. aegypti-specific surveillance and toxic
oviposition traps designed to detect and control this important vector species in and around
disease foci." There's at least one mosquito lab at ISU, ask them about mosquitos that carry
disease and suppression strategies.
• Definition of stagnant? Birdbaths and rain barrels could be considered stagnant, under some
definitions.
• Love this inclusion for a code. Important for public health and West Nile prevention.
• Especially in this weather we have been having, a lot of gardeners use rain water collection
systems to collect water. Would this prohibit that? If it has a lid I don't see the deal.
• This is a clear matter of public health (mosquitos borne illness)
• "3) Does this include rain barrels? If so, this seems to contradict efforts to make Ames a
more ecologically sustainable city"
• How do you propose to address this?
• Are residents not allowed to have a bird bath under this rule?
• How much stagnant water? Is a birdbath or rain barrel ok? What if someone collects rain water
in buckets for gardening? I know someone who does that. I don't like it, but it has a function.
• Yes, please pass this!
• What is stagnant water—is it a kiddy pool filled with water?
• What's considered stagnate water? How do you stop it? When we get six inches of rain in a day,
a lot of people will have stagnant water.
• I wish the city would keep the alley graded so that pools of water didn't congregate there.
The current Municipal Code prohibits snow and ice from being allowed to accumulate on public
sidewalks but does not address other debris such as gravel or mud. The proposed ordinance would
prohibit gravel, mud, and other debris from accumulating on the sidewalk. Do you have any
comments?
• This is a rare instance I would think. Not enforceable.
• This allows for nit picking. Do I get a ticket because I am away from my home for 2 days and
some misbehaved teenager decides to make a mess of my yard?
• Tough to control nature after a windstorm
• Enforce downtown
• Would need more detail
• All good as long as the same standards are applied to City removal of snow, ice, gravel, mud and
other debris. Hard for the City to enforce this one if they aren't following their own policies.
• Needed, ADA accessability.
• What about construction on the property?
• No thanks, I don’t live in a HOA neighborhood for a reason :)
• Am I going to be billed for this?
• Great idea.
• These are brand-new violations and will wrongly target low income families. It’s going to
disproportionately affect our neighbors who are already trying to make ends meet. Why not
offer grants and incentives instead of of fining people and billing them for things they didn’t
want or couldn’t afford? Please think this through.
• During the winter months for snow and ice treatment, usage of salt and sand mixture is often
used by various homeowners to prevent hazardous ice from forming will that be exempt for a
period of time
• If this is a true safety issue, this has potential
• Will this also include lawns that have overgrown sidewalks? Or does this also include weeds that
grow in the cracks of a sidewalk? What natural limitations exist?
• If you’re going to do this than you better make sure that there is NO gravel on the public bike
paths from public/city property
• I think having programs to help those owners that need help to repair their sidewalk should be a
priority.
• Yes
• Good idea.
• Provide assistance to property owners in rectifying such issues (for example, heavy rain could
wash mud/gravel into the street through no fault of the owners').
• It’s Iowa it rains. It doesn’t cause a public health issue. Are we supposed to mop up mud outside
after it rains??? I get mud on my sidewalk because YOUR snowplow plowed through my yard
and dug up all the grass because I had a Black Lives Matter flag.
• You have more than enough to do, stop worrying about this crap
• I think this will target low income people.
• This one is ridiculous
• Again, why is Ames creating a city-wide HOA?
• What level of accumulation is too much? I have a spot in my yard that I've been unsuccessful
growing new grass despite numerous attempts because of the trees in that area. In heavy rains
some mud does wash onto the sidewalk. I'm not happy about it but have tried my best to
resolve the issue and we always clear the sidewalk soon after the rain. I would not be happy to
be fined for this.
• Please oppose any owner occupied housing maintenance code. We all live differently and have
different standards, maintenance codes DO NOT promote diversity and inclusion and the poor
are often targets of codes like this. The last thing the City of Ames needs to do is police
homeowners, passing any part of an owner occupied maintenance code will open the door to
expanding this power in the future. Please vote no.
• This would be fabulous.
• Yes. Great change
• Again, I live downtown, we all have some dirt in the sidewalk, not everyone can afford to live in
a brand new neighborhood. Support affordable housing
• good idea. Sprinkler systems should not be running over sidewalks, either.
• What about when snow is thrown into my drive way
• this rule is far too ambiguously worded to reasonably enforce
• This is overreaching and classist as well as adding additional challenges and/or expense for
disabled homeowners. Putting the onus on individual homeowners one by one makes less sense
than the city maintaining basic infrastructure like sidewalks and bike paths and roads.
• As a property owner I can easily and promptly take care of ice and snow accumulation on my
sidewalk, but if it's been a particularly rainy week I can't do a lot about mud on my sidewalk,
partly because my sidewalk isn't totally even and I can't afford to replace my sidewalk right now.
Fining someone for poor sidewalk conditions isn't going to help them afford a new sidewalk.
• Again, more info on what "accumulating" means?
• When the city stops pushing snow back in driveways and sidewalks when plowing we can
consider this
• I agree with this one
• Gravel has accumulated on the city owned bike path and sidewalk along the east side of South
Duff. It's been there since winter. Let's see how you clean house before you go after others.
• I support this
• Enforce existing codes on landlords
• Enforce existing codes on large landlord companies
• Lead by example- the snow and ice on the streets each winter is horribly plowed. If you can't do
the streets well, why expect home owners to do it better on sidewalks? Fix that first, then talk
about gravel or mud, but this is just petty and scrupulous.
• Seems unnecessary
• this is ridiculous
• makes sense
• What? Why and where is this necessary?
• If the city really cared about pedestrians it would plow sidewalks just like it does roads
• Is this really a problem? The city doesn't even address horifically uneven sidewalks as it is so
why would they care about a little bit of gravel or mud? Why add an ordinance that serves no
purpose when the current ones aren't even enforced that legitimately effect safety?
• This is harmful to the low income and punitive.
• I am not sweeping my sidewalk everyday to keep other people happy.
• I don't see this as a current problem.
• Please provide scientific research showing that this is detrimental to the health and safety of the
community.
• This seems tough to enforce. What if the people have a dirt or gravel driveway that that goes
through the sidewalk? Also, the poor are more likely to have dirt or gravel driveways.
• Define debris.
• Needs an exclusion, “unless part of an active construction project.”
• This is fine, but lets define how much. To make the sidewalk unpassable without walking
around? A slight surface covering? When it rains heavily, I see water due to drainage carry
topsoil accross the sidewalk and it does accumulate, but I wait for a critical mass before doing
anything about it.
• Define “accumulating”
• The snow/ice one isn't even being addressed-trying to walk to Sawyer elementary is challenging
during the winter, why add another regulation if the current one is not enforced/cared about
even next to an elementary school?
• I'm in favor of this
• The city itself has ally ways that wash gravel onto many sidewalks. Would these be included?
• This seems reasonable.
• Would need more info on other debris or omit it
• After heavy rain mud can accumulate and not everyone can devote their time to keeping a
pristine yard.
• If the city has a problem with this, the city can deal with it. I’m not doing it, and I don’t want my
tax dollars spent that way either.
• I support.
• How much is too much. This seems hard to prevent for some sidewalks too.
• Is this really a concern? Are people tripping over gravel?
• I oppose this and do not feel this is a problem.
• Great idea. Pushing a stroller through gravel on sidewalks was a challenge.
• Good idea.
• Again, please define, how much gravel, mud, debris is acceptable on sidewalks, and at what
point is it a problem? Who is the authority on this amount? It is possible that construction crews
(public and private) are failing to clean up the sidewalks after they do projects? If so, why should
homeowners be saddled with cleaning up after them? Are the elderly and disabled supposed to
figure out a way to take care of this, and if unable to do so, to accept a bill from the city, that
they likely cannot pay or that is burdensome for people already on a fixed income, for taking
care of the “public” sidewalk?
• There's always snow and ice in front of rental units. How would this change that? Will landlords
be expected to maintain the sidewalk when their tenants don't own necessary equipment?
• No comments
• Yes--mud accumulates in sidewalk areas that have settled.
• Vote yes.
• This would be an unnecessary added challenge for people with mobility issues who may already
have to rely on someone else to help with shoveling snow. Additionally, I've encountered more
issues with the city not bothering to fix areas of sidewalk that are smashed to pieces (i.e. Kellogg
Ave. near the hospital) than I ever have with mud or gravel being on the sidewalk.
• Agreed.
• If work is done that creates it, it should be the person doing the work responsible
• 1993, 2010 are any of you old enough to remember those years? What is accumulating mean?
What if I get a dump of gravel for landscaping , who deems it too close to sidewalk? Seriously,
you have enough rules, just stop this crap.
• would be impossible to enforce
• The city can provide clean up easily and cheaply. Many residents are not physically able to do
this work abd private businesses charge exorbitant amounts of money to do it.
• Reasonable
• NO, If this becomes a pubic hazard can't the city cite the homeowner without it becoming a city
ordanince
• What level of mud/gravel/debris is unacceptable? This seems like more fodder for neighbor
wars, and again penalizes those that may not be able to attend to their property as efficiently as
others.
• sidewalks should be clear edge to edge within the snow ordinance, and cleaned periodically to
prevent grass mud or gravel from accumulating
• I Do not agree with this.
• Good idea. I suggest a pool of volunteers to clean this up for the elderly or disabled that can’t
physically do it.
• Does the city propose as well to implement a fund for low income families who cannot afford to
level their land with the sidewalk? This is an issue on many rental units as well, but apparently
it's only now becoming an issue for owner-occupants?
• n/a
• Good.
• Agree mud should be removed, makes it difficult to walk
• Unenforceable and often uncontrollableunless the city is willing to offer this as a public service.
• Stop complaining!
• Why stop there?! I bet we can imagine so many more types of debris than that!
• I think a depth (like 1 inch of mud of at least 10 square feet) should be specified.
• Don’t count “grass trimmings” from mowing. Some sidewalks have low/uneven spots that cause
old cut grass to accumulate. Lots of people don’t have grass bags and don’t have a means to
dispose of it properly, and a lot of older people probably can’t be bending over all day in hot
weather trying to scoop up old grass
• I would add grass clippings--I have seen runners and blind individuals stumble or fall as a result
of uncleaned up grass clippings
• No.
• This seems reasonable as long as adequate time is allowed for removal.
• That would be a good thing.
• If it is the city’s grading of parking lawn that causes water to runoff into sidewalks and carry
sediment that builds up, it had better not be the property owner’s responsibility to clear it.
• OK
• If city wants to tell us what to do one sidewalks and right of ways they should take care of them
in addition to the streets.
• You can’t force people to follow a public mask mandate, but you want to force them to keep
their sidewalk free of mud, grass, and gravel? No, I think the best you can do is strongly
recommend people keep sidewalks clear and raise fines for pet waste left behind.
• Do this. Public sidewalks are public and must be maintained (but imho the city should do it)
• Another code to punish students. Impressive.
• The sidewalk is not owned by the property owner. Maintenance thereof should not be their
responsibility.
• That's getting rather picky. What do you consider other debris? Leaves? grass clippings?
• Forcing people to sweep a sidewalk is ridiculous and abelist.
• I oppose
• What do you propose people do with mud or gravel on their sidewalks? Throw it in the street?
• Sidewalks should also be kept clear of bikes and other things for the safety of the visually
impaired
• Fine
• What is other debris? Twigs? Lawn clippings?
• I agree. Abled bodied people might have a fit about this, but wheelchairs, small children's
wheeled transportation, walkers for the elderly, and others need this. What about sidewalks
that dip below the surface of the ground and is often impossible to maintain to this standard?
Would this end up excluding using grit as a salt alternative for icey/slippery conditions?
• Very important to prevent injury and falls. Perhaps require a certain depth of debris or coverage
of sidewalk.
• Yep, prohibiting dirt where dirt belongs. Got it
• Agreed.
• Good. Sidewalks in this town need a lot of work.
• Agreed. The sidewalk needs to be passable.
• ...sometimes this stuff is going to accumulate.
• So if you have a gravel driveway you have a problem, Why are we picking on these people? How
common is this anyway?
Ames Public Works has encountered instances in which property owners push their snow onto the
public street. The proposed ordinance would prohibit pushing snow onto a public street. Comments?
• How does this fall on the property owner.
• Unnecessary
• Define how that would work in Downtown/Campustown. Could cause major issues for building
and business owners. Perhaps a policy for those areas about having the sidewalks cleared and
into the streets by a certain time would then allow public works to clear it after that.
• Only exception would be downtown/campustown districts
• Fine them
• No thanks, I don’t live in a HOA neighborhood for a reason :)
• Ames residents have encountered instances in which Ames Public Works pushes their snow
onto a private driveway.
• Great idea.
• Will the city be making sure to keep snow and ice off of our driveways and off of all city
properties?
• This is bull… the city throws more snow onto sidewalks and creates more problems than anyone
else… and is usually packed and icy..
• Will the city stop plowing public snow into my private driveway?
• I would love this, but many residents still have issue with public plows throwing snow back onto
shoveled sidewalks. I think we need to resolve both issues simultaneously instead of placing
penalties on frustrated shovelers.
• I won’t push my snow in the street when the city stops pushing 3 feet of snow into my driveway
after I’ve shoveled in 10 times
• Please deal with the city blocking my driveway first.
• What about snow that gets piled up on our driveways? Where should that snow go?
• Nope, this one is a good one
• The city pushes snow into driveways from the road...so it belongs in the road.
• You have more than enough to do, stop worrying about this crap
• Do I get to fine you when you push 2 feet of snow into the private driveway I just finished
shoveling?
• This is stupid. I would like the city to not put snow in my driveway when they plow.
• Isnt this already disallowed? Now you want to have more control over people
• Every single snowfall we get where plows are out I get lots of crap snow/ice pushed into my
driveway by your plows. We never shovel our snow into the street and in fact often shovel the
street in front of our drive trying to avoid the snow pile your plows leave. Snow is a nuisance
but unless someone pushes a huge pile out into the street perhaps there ought to be a little give
and take.
• stop pushing street snow onto my driveway you hypocrites!
• Please oppose any owner occupied housing maintenance code. We all live differently and have
different standards, maintenance codes DO NOT promote diversity and inclusion and the poor
are often targets of codes like this. The last thing the City of Ames needs to do is police
homeowners, passing any part of an owner occupied maintenance code will open the door to
expanding this power in the future. Please vote no.
• There are examples where this may be the only reasonable alternative.
• What about when the city trucks push snow from the street so it's blocking my way out of my
driveway? Isn't that basically the same hazard as pushing our snow into the street?
• NO. Public works push snow into drive
• This is tricky because often the problem is the opposite--the public plows pushing snow onto our
cleared walk and driveway.
• You should see what the city dumps on me. This is nuts
• Good idea
• What about when snow is thrown into my drive way
• Do I get fined or do my neighbors when their kids knock my snow pile into the street and
someone reports my address?
• There is no "away" and I would think that this could be a nightmare...I don't even begin to
understand how you could enforce this with hired snow removal companies, who often pull the
snow to the opposing side of the road. Leaving it on the lawn extension will just result in people
getting reblocked in by the city snowplows, and you'll have just another new problem. Snow is
something that we all just should be able to work around. .
• See #4
• In the case whereby the snowplow has not yet plowed the street is it a problem to blow snow in
the path where the snowplow will eventually go? It will all end up on the curb anyway
• Enforce existing codes on landlords
• Enforce existing codes on large landlord companies
• Seems unnecessary
• ames residents have encountered instances where the city plows push snow onto their freshly
shoveled sidewalks
• would this be purposly pushing it into street or if some goes on the street and someone sees it
your getting a fine? more detail would be good.
• What about public plows pushing snow into driveways? That seems like a more common issue.
• Since the snow and ice was pushed from the street into private property by them in the first
place maybe they could stop whining.
• What harm does this do?
• The city pushes street snow into my driveway. please ask them to stop and fine them every time
they do it.
• The city pushes their snow on my driveway, so... seems like a little getting back in the street that
came from there in the first place isn't a problem.
• Please provide scientific research showing that this is detrimental to the health and safety of the
community.
• This is reasonable.
• It should be perfectly fine - the city doesn't remove remove snow, it piles up in our yards
• Sure, I'm fine with this. If the city doesn't push snow onto my driveway or sidewalk as a likewise
concern.
• Sometimes homeowners have no where to put snow.
• The snow plows push it into people's yards so why arent we allowed to push it into the same
pile they create?
• I'm in favor of this
• Does this also prohibit plows from pushing snow onto private property? Will a truck come by
after a plow and clear what they have put into my clean driveway and sidewalk?
• Seems reasonable.
• I am not sure I feel about this. We clear our drive and then plows push it back in front of our
driveway.
• Ames public also needs to not push snow in driveways and use curbed space
• If this is a problem, I feel like it can be addressed by neighbors without the cities involvement
• Just how will you police that?
• Where else can we push it when we have postage stamp sized lots. I try to pile it or blow it
beside my driveway, but in the hardest winter months sometimes there are no other options
but to go to the curb or the street.
• Anyone shoveling out their driveway is going to do so in a way that is conducive to their own
driving--and everyone else's. Unnecessary and petty piece of code.
• The city plows their snow in my driveway I should be able to put it back.
• I oppose this and feel that public works pushes snow and ice onto private property all the time.
• As long as the ordinance also prohibits the city from plowing in the end of my driveway and
pushing snow onto my property.
• This is just petty. Homeowners are constantly having to deal with tons of snow that the city
pushes into their driveways. We live in Iowa. There is going to be snow. It is a pain for everyone
to deal with. Most people put their snow where it belongs as long as they can. When the snow
gets out of control people run out of places to put it.
• This should be considered a street hazard.
• No comment
• Seems OK to do this if it's just prior to snowplowing.
• Vote yes.
• As long as it's before the snow plow goes by its OK, but after the streets been plowed its not.
• It would be hypocritical for the city to enforce this policy while at the same time routinely
dumping massive amounts of snow onto residents' driveways and properties every time it
snows.
• Needs clarification.
• The city pushes sidewalk snow into backyards, over and AGAINST fences causing damage
• So, I hire a snow removal service and they push it into the street, do I get fined? The snow
removal and lawn care people are short staffed and some of their hires are not great. I would
suggest that you not have an "ordinance" for every damn thing but instead let people know of
the hazards of putting snow into the street.
• Unbelievable--most property owners do this.
• My current residence is on a corner lot. I have encountered situations where Ames Public Works
has pushed snow from the street onto my sidewalk multiple times during a snow event. Each
time I had shoveled after the snow was pushed there. I did not shovel into the street as I already
thought this ordinance was in effect. I don’t believe homeowners should be penalized for
clearing a sidewalk apron onto the edge of a street or if snow toppled off of the right of way, as
a snowplow likely contributed to their workload.
• NO
• I already thought that was an ordinance? Downtown businesses are asked to push their snow
into the street so the plows can pick it up.
• Having people cited for this is petty, in my opinion
• Are we talking a whole drive-way worth, or are they pushing back out what the plows push in?
Also, what if we are trying to get it onto the lawn, but the accumulation that year is stunning
and the piles spill over onto the street? If this is that big of a problem, then maybe codify the
gross instances (e.g., whole driveway onto the street). Otherwise, we are all just trying our best.
• Where else does it go? City of Ames piles snow in public streets all the time. I do not agree with
this.
• Good idea.
• Don't support
• This is, perhaps, the only reasonable policy put forward in this slate of options.
• This is ambiguous as well. You need to be more direct as to what issue this causes. Is this before
or after plows have come around? What impact does it have other than to the homeowner?
Why can the plow not take it away? And why is the plow aloud to push snow onto the sidewalk
and 4 feet into our driveway?
• Good.
• Good idea, but sometimes there's no place for it to go
• The city pushes heavy snow and ice into the driveway and blocks off sidewalks. Let's fix that
first.
• The city snow plows consistently push snow onto my driveway after it has been cleared. This
would be very difficult to prove who pushed snow onto the street.
• Don’t push it in people’s driveways and sidewalks!
• It occurs to me that piling it in the yard might result in stagnant standing water a few months
down the road.
• Until the city of Ames can assure they aren't plowing a shit ton of snow blocking property
owners driveways, making them have to shove EVEN MORE snow, then you shouldn't complain
about the snow placed being pushed back.
• I think this is ridiculous because the city pushes snow from the road onto my property, and I
deal with it.
• Then quit pushing it back into the driveway
• Will the city be prohibited from pushing snow on to residents’ driveways and sidewalks?
• No. But this will probably be enforced as much as people shooting grass in the street
• Will snow plows be prohibited from pushing snow from a public street into my driveway?
Residents should not have to be responsible for clearing street snow that is left on their
property.
• In return, how about prohibiting the city snow plows from piling 2 feet of compressed slush onto
the sidewalks?
• If the city trucks pushed the snow into the driveway from the street, it can go right back out into
the street where it came from.
• OK
• So when the snowplow packs the end of the driveway with ice and the heaviest of snow that
makes it impossible to pull out of the drive or walk on the sidewalks will the city workers come
clear that? That would help!
• Probably people retaliating after plows push snow on to their recently cleared drive ways, but
I’m not sure how this can be enforced. I suggest better enforcement of clearing parked cars
from streets so plows can clear as much snow possible.
• This is dumb, clear the streets, done.
• Where would people plowing their driveways put that snow? On their lawn? Where it might be
considered junk?
• Would the city also consider looking to ways to keep their snow from being pushed into
residential driveways? After the plows have come down my street I can’t get out or into my
driveway until I’ve removed the snow that has been pushed there by the city plows.
• What does it matter when public plows push snow back onto properties? Unfair.
• This is the stupidest thing in this whole list. City plows can bury driveways but homeowners can't
push it back into the street? Gtfoh.
• Fine as long as the plows don't push street snow into my cleared driveway
• The snow plows fill my driveway with snow and ice. This is a bigger issue.
• Can we have an ordinance that states that the city or state can't push snow onto a person's
sidewalk (which then has to be shoveled by that poor person)?
• I mostly agree. This behavior is sometimes in retaliation to having a shoveled driveway plowed
in, but can dangerous to vehicle traffic. If they are worried about salt burning their yard, they
should buy the vegetation/pet safe de-icer.
• If the street hasn't been plowed yet, then why wouldn't you make your life easier by pushing it
onto it
• Does this mean that reciprocally, the city plow trucks can't block our driveways with ice berms
any more?
• Would you also prohibit the city snow plows from pushing snow into my driveway and blocking
the exit I have shoveled out
• What if it’s on city maintained walkways?
• If you enforce this, then it should also be enforced that a snow plow cannot push snow into a
residential driveway. Half of the snow at the front of a driveway comes from the public street.
• Right
• Yeah, it happens, I don't know if we really need an ordinance for it.
The proposed ordinance would allow vegetation in the right-of-way (the area between the street and
sidewalk that is owned by the City, but maintained by the property owner), but would limit the height
of the vegetation to 12 inches. Comments?
• Good idea
• This should be handled on a case by case basis. People get injured and can’t go for a period of
time.
• Agree and no vegetable gardens
• Please approve
• Should be shorter! No reason for folks to allow grass that tall, and should eliminate ugly
landscapes from those areas. Only exception should be street trees. Additionally, people
shouldn't put excessive energy or resources into an area that the city could tear up at any time
for maintenance.
• Should be 8" due to response time if they do not comply. If they don't, mow it and lien the
property.
• What if it rains nonstop for several days?
• Does this include trees and native vegetation? I would strongly object if so. Native vegetation is
crucial for our wildlife and pollinators and is much more beneficial than short nom-funtional turf
grass.
• What about people you are letting grow prairie grass
• No thanks, I don’t live in a HOA neighborhood for a reason :)
• I think it depends on the area. Sometimes 12 inches or more isn’t an issue.
• Great idea.
• Assuming trees would not fall into this.
• The city should be offering initiatives for families who are choosing more natural lawns, which
are better for the environment and city.
• Yes please some yards around my house are now waist high and nothing is being done
• Too short when you consider what the city has planted
• This seems to be too broad. There are beautiful flower gardens through out city. Maybe
implement on a case by case basis where visibility is severely limited and dangerous
• 12 inches seems too extreme of a restriction. Native plants and trees grow in excess of such
restrictions. This rule seems both unnecessary and unduly invasive on residents.
• 12” is really not that tall for vegetation
• This should exclude prairie grass and native vegetation
• There are areas that people grow trees and flowers that are beautiful. Those exceed 12 inches
sometimes. Who decides what is allowed and what isn’t?
• Yes
• Do NOT agree with as I feel gardens in these areas make Ames better and unique.. Native
gardens and watershed plants can have flowers up to 4-5 feet. Remove this idea.
• This is fair
• Frequently this is and issue on city property as well. Practice what you preach
• Absolutely not. These picket fence yard rules have a very racists history and you don’t want to
go down that path. Plus, Iowa was a prarie and kentucky blue grass is the invasive species not
tall plants. Do you know how shitty lawns are going to look when you make everyone get rid of
their bushes? Or will you not punish those people only those who you suspect are poor
• You have more than enough to do, stop worrying about this crap
• I'm okay with that, but maybe also suggest a list of native plants that grow under that height
• Is the Ciy going to come out and help maintain this? Again, this feels like overreach and will
penalize primarily disabled and poor residents
• Your rain gardens have vegetation that doesn't meet this.
• planting wildflower in areas should be encoraged. this is completely wrong headed
• Please oppose any owner occupied housing maintenance code. We all live differently and have
different standards, maintenance codes DO NOT promote diversity and inclusion and the poor
are often targets of codes like this. The last thing the City of Ames needs to do is police
homeowners, passing any part of an owner occupied maintenance code will open the door to
expanding this power in the future. Please vote no.
• Yes. Limit height
• Terrible idea. We need more native grasses and flowers that support a healthy environment
• Go further. Sidewalks should remain clear
• What about natural plants. This isn’t your business
• There are sunflowers that a homeowner has planted in the right of way along Grand for many
years and this rule would make that homeowner's sunflowers a violation. More government
overstep. Native flowers and grasses would absolutely be taller than this limit.
• Sad to lose sunflowers on Grand, but I understand the need for visibility for the safety of
animals, children, and people on the road.
• I'm interested in if this 'vegetation' includes things like native grasses, prairie plants, and
pollinator gardens. Many of these vegetations are greater than 12 inches but provide numerous
ecological benefits.
• All of these new proposals just feel really oppressive and elitist, to be honest...I would think at a
MINIMUM that you should include a grandfather clause or some sort of process for exemptions
• What about flowers etc
• Doesn't seem necessary, if it is included I would go with 2 ft.
• The city planted 10 foot tall trees in the right of way. Consider revising this to include ground
hugging vegitation.
• Enforce existing codes on landlords
• Enforce existing codes on large landlord companies
• I hate tall grass too, but if someone has the time to drive around town with a ruler measuring
grass, our tax-dollars need to be better spent.
• 12 inches is very short. What vehicle would not be able to see over 24 inches of vegetation?
Most ornamental flowers are more than 12 inches but less than 24. Maybe picking something
more reasonable would be ok? Still seems unecessary. The city planted shrubs in the 24th/Hayes
street water retention areas, as well as many plants exceeding 12 inches. How would this apply
to the city? Would the city have to take all those plants out?
• The word "vegetation" includes trees. I believe there are numerous trees on the right of way,
would this include them?
• ableist bullshit
• fine
• Twelve inches seems short. As long as it is shorter than a car window why not give more wiggle
room?
• Sounds like I need to obtain some low-growing cacti
• 12 inches seems really short... Maybe 2-3 feet, but where is this actually necessary? Did
someone complain about their neighbor's flowers? I don't see how this could possibly be a
common complaint.
• The city exceeds this already in many places where the city maintains the right of way with
plantings. It is clearly not a problem. This is not for health and safety. MAYBE if it was a corner?
Maybe. But along a straight street what is the point? No one needs to see over that but the
homeowner and they can easily see over 2-3 feet worth of growth. We allow fences to be 4 feet.
Maybe that would be a better height although I don't think this should be implemented at all.
• Why? This harmful to biodiviersity, soil health and the natural ecosystem. The city does not
follow this already on city maintained areas.
• The height requirement seems unnecessarily short.
• What is the justificiation for this? Why so low? Certainly not for safety reasons if it is so much
lower than would be necessary for that. This eleiminates almost all ornamental flowers.
• Please provide scientific research showing that this is detrimental to the health and safety of the
community.
• Why? How does this affect others? It is not on a sidewalk or in the street. Visibility is not an
issue here, nor is safety, so why create more unnecessary rules because other people don't like
how it looks?
• So, no rhododendrons, azaleas, decorative grasses, trees... Just grass? What about the water
gardens? This not well thought out or well stated.
• This is not conducive to native plantings, especially for areas in full sun.
• Too restrictive. Many flowers around mailboxes cause no issues but would violate a 12” rule.
• So what about all the trees you have in the right of way? And my tulips would be in violation of
this
• Are we talking grass? Or trees, Some neighbors have trees in this ROW, they're much taller than
12 inches.
• This is not very native plant friendly. Many of the plants that people would use to make their
yards more pollinator friendly, reduce their use of pesticides, etc. would use vegetation that
would not fit this criteria--even though this is better for water quality and offers an additional
aesthetic value. I propose this be considered only for turf grasses, not meant to grow over 12
inches.
• This will result in the destruction of all of the time and money people have invested in pollinator
gardens on ROWs and this is a TERRIBLE precedent for the city of Ames to set.
• The city has encouraged native species, many of which are over 12 inches. I am against this
change.
• #6 and #9 seem to be in conflict, allowing for native plants over 12 inches, but then prohibiting
vegetation of all kinds over 12 inches.
• Many native shrubs and other plants, as well as flowers, are taller than 12 inches. Turf grass is
wasteful and we should encourage people to use other plants. I am opposed to this ordinance.
• 12 inches is too short. Many people like to plant pollinator gardens in the right of way. Many
important native pollinator plants exceed 12 inches.
• The city planted vegetation higher than 12 inches on 24th street in their redesign. Please
address what the city’s plan is for removing that and replanting with approved vegetation at all
locations they have done this at across the city.
• I can think of many neighborhoods with beautiful gardens in the righ-of-way. Many have
vegetation higher than 12 inches. Disallowing these would actually detract from these
neighborhoods. Maybe specifying a distance from the corner (so cars can see traffic coming) or
specifying that the vegetation needs to clearly be part of an organized garden bed.
• Seems reasonable.
• Would be fine if only for new vegitation vs items already in place
• This doesn't make any sense. Native iowa grasses are more than 12 inches.
• I see no issue with this
• Until the city does a better job I don't think they have much room to talk. Look how they
destroyed that wooded area off Duff. Also even low growing plants sometime grow much bigger
that planned.
• All of the vegetation planted by the city in the rain gardens on Ridgewood already violate this
rule. Is the city going to remove those plants ot does the homeowner have to remedy the
situation? And, if we are to plant pollinator or rain water gardens,, there are few plants that are
less than 12 inches. Of all the proposals this is probably the worst idea. r
• I moved to Ames from Carroll for the progressive culture and stance on environment and
ecology. A code restricting height of all plants within the ROW is onerous, environmentally
insensitive, and invasive of individual's choices. I strongly oppose this regressive policy, which
would even outlaw some of the city's own initiatives.
• This is too extreme. While I have a neighbor who neglects his yard and this could provide some
mechanism for oversight, I also want people to plant more native grasses and plants. The places
where I have seen native grasses and plants, it doesn’t restrict view for ROW both as a driver
and cyclist. Perhaps consider 3 feet as the minimum.
• This is way too short and would make most native plants unable to be grown in the right of way.
• I oppose this and feel that there is no justification for it.
• Trees are vegetation over 12 inches. Why 12 inches? Lots of great native plants, taller than 12
inches, do a much better job at surface water retention, reducing run-off, reducing flooding and
pollution.
• Increase limit to18 inches to allow hostas and flowering perennial flowers planted therein.
• Finally, you defined your terms. Are you planning to apply this to ditches? I used to have a very
nice ditch that we happily mowed. Then, Highway 69/South Duff was widened and the ditch was
made so steep it is completely unsafe to mow. Apparently, in acknowledgement of the fact that
we could not mow our ditches safely the city chose a seed mixture that isn’t supposed to require
mowing. It also isn’t very attractive, but we have ceased to deal with it regardless of how ugly it
gets, because we didn’t create this situation, we are just stuck with it.
• Abolish yards and grow native prairie plants.
• This would eliminate all perennial corner gardens, rain gardens, and flowers in boulevards.
Change to 24" or ideally 36" flower height or clarify if the intent here is to require only turf grass
in ROW.
• No--very very bad idea. See me property's sidewalk ornamental garden along N. 3rd St (address
is 304 N Russell Ave) for an example of plantings that hugely increase the aesthetic qualities for
pedestrians. I have people every year who thank me for this. Visual obstruction is only an issue
at intersections. Maybe limit this rule to mowing of turfgrass.
• I think this is by far the most overly-broad proposed regulation, specifically the visual rule.
Simply put, something does not become a visual barrier at 12 inches and enforcement of this
rule will make Ames dramatically less attractive and worse for native pollinators and birds. In
the mission statement of Ames, there is a stated desire to be “Data Driven.” Has there ever
been a single documented case of a car crash/pedestrian incident due to grasses/plants in the
row? There are very few useful and beautiful native plants that are under 12 inches tall. In one
house in particular, I have seen a beautiful patch of native purple cone flower that provides
some nectar for bees, seeds for birds, and beauty for neighbors and passersby. If you think that
a visual barrier is necessary, I propose that four feet is sufficient and more useful for diverse
plantings that enhance the vibrancy of Ames and
• This to me is ridiculous. Many neighborhoods near me have charming vegetative gardens that in
no way inhibit walking on the sidewalks despite being over 12” tall. If there must be some
ordinance in place, the height limit should be much taller (like 36 or 48”) and specify how closely
things can be planted to the sidewalk. If owners are prohibited from planting close to the
walkway it will negate the specified issue.
• Do not allow. Vote no.
• The 12" rule seems arbitrary anyways, but there is plenty of natural vegetation and decorative
plants that look nice and are taller than 12 inches. I'm assuming the intent here is to specifically
address overgrown grass, but the language as it stands would mean that many currently
intentionally-created gardens and areas of natural plants would have to be destroyed for an
arbitrary rule.
• As long as this ordinance doesn't affect areas where community gardens are planted, I agree.
• No. There would be bickering on who takes care, whose turn.
• Great! Does that mean you can get rid of the "water garden" crap on 24th & Hayes? Also, if
this is really a sight line issue, can I recommend a city ordinance that prohibits those large
electrical boxes that are REALLY blocking street sight lines? 20th and Grand, Stange & Fareway
by the bank, and the list goes one. That is the real problem.
• Some species of desirable vegetation exceed 12 inches
• So goodbye beautifully tended flowers and shrubs?! All of these proposals are bullshit. What
rich white people made them?
• Reasonable
• NO, not necessary
• Trees? I would agree with areas near corners to allow for visibility for cars and pedestrians but
elsewhere it shouldn't matter. The sidewalk should be clear of vegetation or tree branches to
allow for unimpeded walking.
• Limit it to just under height of hydrants.
• Why? Vegetation is pleasant to look at, is good for the environment (better than monoculture),
and in most cases should not cause a problem. If there are specific instances causing problems,
deal with that. Also, remember that some people have different aesthetic values. Some prefer
an ultra manicured look, and others prefer a more natural look. Neither is "right".
• I think this would be overall good, but manicured plants and things like Milkweed would be
appropriate, but not mowing ditch areas, especially in the rear of properties needs to be dealt
with to control noxious weeds, shrubs, and in general keep the properties looking good.
Example GW Carver east side along west side of Somerset neighborhood south of Northridge
villiage
• Plants are always good but it seems like the city itself has already violated this ordinance with
some of the trees planted around town by y’all.
• How high could flowers be to not obstruct sight of traffic? 12” seems pretty low, I’d go to 24”.
• Don't support
• I see that the city no longer wishes to allow plants such as butterfly milkweed, and many iowa
natives to be grown. The statement is that it does not limit vegetation, but by limiting height
you are doing just that and completely failing in intent.
• Disagree....there are several home owners who have trees there and some are using the area for
vegetable gardens. Tomatoes are taller.
• n/a
• Is this limit for safety? Being able to safely back out of a driveway or see around a corner? If it’s
aesthetic, I think it should not apply to those that have planted native species or rain gardens.
• The right of way in front of our house contains many plants, native and non-native that attract a
wide variety of pollinators and other insects including many monarchs and other butterflies. I
also use the area to grow food--peppers and tomatoes in pots. My house sits mid- block with no
driveways on either side so visibility isn't an issue. I have always known that the city might need
me to move plants for infrastructure improvements. I've been willing to take that risk. Our city
has worked very hard to improve our watersheds by encouraging the use of native vegetation.
While the 12" requirement does say it must be turf, I struggle to think of many native species
that would only grow to that height. Traditional cool season turf grass is most definitely not
native and many home owners insist on using herbicides to make the "perfect" lawn. I do
understand that vegetation can cause problems with visibility in certain locations. Since this
seems to be the prime reason for this rule perhaps that is what you should try to deter.
Language that speaks to site distance might be appropriate as well language that requires
sidewalks to be kept clear of vegetation. I certainly want everyone to be able to use my
sidewalk safely and easily.
• No opinion
• If it's owned by the city it should be maintained by the city.
• Who has time to care about this stuff!
• Those would make for some pretty wimpy tomato plants; go big or go home.
• Strongly disagree.
• No.
• This would outlaw things like native plantings and peony bushes. This is weighted towards
people who love chemical filled grass with straight mow lines on it. Boo!
• This is the WORST proposal of them all. This means no lilacs, no peonies, no roses, and no
dogwood. It's also anti-pollinator..,
• This targets the elderly and underserved. Unreasonable.
• would 24 or 30 inches be an option that would not contribute to major obstruction of view? I
know folks like to do butterfly/native plantings in this area and many Iowa Native plans are
approximately 2 feet tall.
• That's a lot of trees to cut down.
• This is absurd. No trees, no pollinator gardens, no rain gardens. The height of 12 inches is
completely arbitrary. Clearly this is not about visibility.
• This is absolutely ridiculous, and I am very much opposed to the "12 inches" part of it. In what
way do a few irises or phlox present any danger? I can see why you want to outlaw 6 or 7-foot
sunflowers, but how about putting the height limit at a more reasonable 2 or 3 feet? Are you
going to rip out all the trees, too, or are they not "vegetation"?
• This would not necessarily beautify the city where people might plant flowers near a mailbox
post. It also promotes the use of lawn chemicals in general.
• Most instances of this have nothing to do with traffic. What about trees??? Just require this at
intersections.
• Progress would be to turn all right of ways into habitat for butterflies and insects. Only height
limit should be on corners for visibility and should be 3’.
• Does this include flowers? Again, how is this enforced? Are property owners allowed to have
anything other than grass in this area? What are other non-vegetation options?
• This is dumb, what vegetation other than grass is that short? Tall roadside vegetation is
interesting, and reduces speeding.
• I think the regulation is overly restrictive.
• What about flowers, milkweed, and tall grass prairie plants? Why would the city actively
encourage herbicide fueled lawns of non native grasses? I think this code means well, but has
very negative implications.
• Cut your own grass or don’t expect us to maintain it to a certain level.
• This would greatly limit they types of pollinator plants that could be planted, possibly going
against other city initiatives.
• The obsession with the American lawn is partly to blame for water quality issues and water
supply problems. Don't make it worse, please.
• There is a spot on 24th street as you try to turn onto it from VanBuren where the vegetation in
the rain gardens is over 12" and makes it difficult to see.
• The height should only be limited where it impedes drivers vision. There are a lot of nice
plantings in this area
• Stupid. Stupid. Stupid. What about ornamental grasses? Flowers? This is stupid.
• I oppose. Many beautiful flowers are taller than 12 inches
• Why?
• This is too prohibitive. There are plenty of perennials and trees above this height that add lots of
character.
• Have you seen some of the gorgeous native plantings owners having lovingly nurtured in the
right - of - way?
• Is it possible to restrict vegetation to 12 inches in Iowa? This is a silly solution to an almost non-
existent problem
• This is reasonable, but what about existing shrubs? What about trees?
• Is this excluding trees? You're aiming to target unmowed lawns, but are making other plants
illegal. I love the daisies and flowers some homeowners have in their yards. Is that what is
intended here, and why? Intersections should have line of sight clear, and that means limit of
height could be higher. 2 feet, 3 feet? Why is height a problem in those areas? I thought it would
be certain kinds of root systems.
• So, no wildflowers? Hedges? Rose bushes? This is way too broad.
• There are a lot of beautiful landscaping jobs in town with native wildflowers that are taller than
12 inches. Again, why does it matter?
• This would exclude many nice plants for those areas (like peonies, iris etc).
• What if the plants are part of landscaping? In a defined bed of native flowers that may be taller
than 12 inches.
• while this might make sense in areas that would block visibility that is limited mostly to
intersections and a blanket ban of taller vegetation does not seem necessary
• This would necessitate the elimination of many beautiful existing landscaped areas
• I disagree with this proposal. While I understand that in some places, tall vegetation in ROW
may limit visibility, I have more difficulty seeing around the many cars parked along the streets
and cul de sacs in my neighborhood and feel that on-street parking is a bigger problem than
some tall flowers.
• 12 inches is overly prohibitive and undercuts efforts to create more sustainable and ecologically
sound environments within the city
• Kill at the pollinators…good move not
• If the city wants to enforce this then it can also maintain it.
• 12 inches seems too short. 24" is more reasonable. We already have the sight distance
requirement at corners.
• What if that vegetation is bushes or flowers? I agree it should fit the definition of being well-
maintained, though.
• What?! I have seen many beautiful sunflowers that would be not allowed with this. Also
beautiful wildflowers, etc.
• First, let me say I may be the City's biggest offender, I have around 300' of ROW planted. I do so
knowing that it is City property and with advance notice very receptive to making changes and
adjustments. I started planting it because it was apparent that it was acceptable in Ames when
you see so many planted - I was glad to see a City receptive to alternatives to heavy uses of
water, chemicals and inorganic fertilizers. It also adds to the appeal of older neighborhoods. I
have done this before - that municipality did limit the height to 3' on street turn corners for
visibility, I am in favor of that. But when you have 300', there is a good stretch that does not
impair visibility. My primary issue is that going from no enforcement (that I have seen in 6.5
years living here) to such severe restriction as 12" is both a hardship and an extreme that is not
necessary. I have plants over 3' that I would be receptive to reducing but 12" seems excessive.
You are setting yourslf up for all of those people who do have turf-based ROW's to now be
allowed to let that grow to 12" - that won't be pretty! I plan on attending the workshop. Some
of the things I hope the City will be able to address is (1)prsenting the research and statistics to
show how many accidents have occurred annually and over time due to planted ROW's (2) what
the City plans to do about trees in the ROW's that block visibility even more than grasses,
annuals and perennials (3) what kind of timeline will be given for this compliance. If my ROW
has to be converted to turf grass, I will not be adding chenmicals and inorganic fertilizers - it will
be as it grows. I boght a house within City limits because I thought it was a "green" city; a
movement to eliminate native plants, pollinator gardens, ornamental beauty, free vegetables,
etc. will certainly make me re-think the desirability of living in the City limits. I understand that
this ordinance is directed at people who create issue in the ROW but it is way too generalized
and punished those who take the time, money and effort to make their ROWs more than
ecological wastelands.
• I don't understand why this is a problem.
• Corner plantings in Old Town are often over 12 inches - I thought they had to be less than 3 feet.
It would be sad to lose the pretty gardens.
The proposed ordinance would prohibit vegetation from encroaching into the public sidewalk.
Comments?
• Also good idea
• Please approve
• Absolutely. Isn't this already against code? The city should focus on enforcement of this.
• Agreed
• Again, those owners you are allowing to grow prairie grass
• No thanks, I don’t live in a HOA neighborhood for a reason :)
• No comment
• Great idea.
• Yes!
• Define “encroach” .
• Too vague
• Vague. I could see potential safety issues cited
• Does this also include weeds that grow in the cracks of a sidewalk? What natural limitations
exist? Dandelions are going to grow anywhere they land and weed killers will only cause more
harm. This rule is far too invasive and unnecessary. This sounds more like a home owners
association than a city law.
• Good lord- step around them. People don’t have to walk in a completely straight light all the
time
• No
• This is good. Gardens are ok and welcome but need to be trimmed back.
• Is this really necessary? Small ground-cover plants don't do much harm by encroaching.
• Define how much encroaching is allowed. A few inches is reasonable.
• See the comment aboce
• How will this be defined???? You need to layout exactly what your terms mean
• You have more than enough to do, stop worrying about this crap
• I don't think its a huge deal, but if you think its a problem maybe have someone who goes
around trimming trees and bushes with the property owners permission and only fine if they
refuse. We pay enough in taxes
• Over-reach. Why does Ames want to deal with micromanaging this? This will create greater
burden for disabled and poor or working class owners
• It would be nice to have the full width of sidewalks available.
• Please oppose any owner occupied housing maintenance code. We all live differently and have
different standards, maintenance codes DO NOT promote diversity and inclusion and the poor
are often targets of codes like this. The last thing the City of Ames needs to do is police
homeowners, passing any part of an owner occupied maintenance code will open the door to
expanding this power in the future. Please vote no.
• Great. Edge the lawn
• So we all have to buy an edging tool? Sidewalks sink.. I can’t afford this
• YES PLEASE
• Stupid
• Not everyone has the physical or financial means to trim the vegetation. If it's a problem, the
city should send crews through that take care of this service for free.
• This seems intended to increase safety and accessibility of sidewalks, which I can appreciate.
• This feels ok
• Reasonable and easy to understand.
• I support this
• Enforce existing codes on landlords
• Enforce existing codes on large landlord companies
• What does this even mean? If I don't edge my lawn so it takes 2 inches off each side of the
sidewalk, I can be ticketed?
• What does this even mean? Like branches from bushes growing over the sidewalk?
• F--- this noise
• fine
• Too vaguely worded.
• Oh goody, the edging police.
• Is this really a problem?
• This is harmful to the low income and punitive.
• Is this really a current problem?
• Please provide scientific research showing that this is detrimental to the health and safety of the
community.
• This sounds reasonable.
• Define "encroaching".
• Necessary. Good addition to the code.
• This makes sense, and should remain even if 6 is removed. It addresses the real problem with
large ROW vegetation.
• Where do you draw the line? Is my creeping Charlie hanging over the sidewalk 4inches count as
encroaching?
• Seems reasonable.
• Needs specific dimensions. For example, must be clear 7ft and below
• Unless this is a huge issue somewhere I’m completely oblivious to, I don’t see this as an issue.
• Probably good.
• Again, is the city going to remediate the plantings on Ridgewood in their rain gardens? They
currently flop over and are ungainly messes that we were saddled with in the street upgrade
project. Again, any pollinators plants that might be substituted are higher than 12 inches
• Does this mean everyone has to edge their sidewalks every week in addition to mowing?
• I oppose this and do not see this as a problem.
• Again, please define your terms. How much notice are you giving people to deal with these
things? Are there plans to help out people who are elderly, disabled, or financially
disadvantaged to deal with these issues? Or is this just a back door to stealing their property
from them and forcing them to become tenants of the apartment lords?
• This is a safety issue if on the actual street or blocking signage. Landlords should be in charge of
this, not tenants.
• No comment
• A pdestrian needs clear space as wide as the sidewalk and 7' overhead. Any greater limits is
overkill.
• As I said above, it would be much more realistic to specify how closely things can be planted to a
sidewalk than to specify heights. A house near me has hostas (which are under 12” in height)
spreading all over the sidewalk because they are planted too closely. Why not say plants need to
be 18” from walkways and woody vegetation like bushes 36”?
• Vote yes.
• Agreed. Need definition of encroaching.
• Every blade, or major growth?
• Define encroaching? Is that weeds growing up through the sidewalk cracks? Does that mean I
need to specifically edge my sidewalk to a certain spacing? I don't live in an HOA area for a
reason and this is why. Once again, too many new "ordinances" Just stop
• Define encroaching.
• You are expecting us all to live in a gated community of old white people who have the time and
interest in tattling on their neighbors. All of these policies are threats to hard working middle
and lower class individuals. If I wanted this I could live in a gated retirement community. This is
basically punishing poor people for being poor: its discrimination.
• Reasonable
• NO
• agree.
• "Encroaching" is a poorly defined term
• I thought it did already... I got a letter about bushes years ago telling me to cut them or they
would be cut (at my cost). This one is both an accessibility question and one of ability. Those
that require sidewalks should be able to access them; however, those that have challenges in
maintaining their property should be supported, not penalized.
• Sidewalks should be clear
• No. Let it be. It’s a plant.
• Agree!
• Support
• What counts as encroaching? The city has moved walkways before such that what was not
encroaching now is.
• n/a
• How much encroachment? Do I need to buy an edger and have a perfectly rectangular
sidewalk?? Will the city reimburse me for such a purchase. I think this part of the ordinance
needs more definite standards.
• I think this is appropriate.
• Good idea
• Good luck.
• Fair enough
• I bet it’ll be enforced about as effectively as the current snow ordinance.
• Strongly disagree.
• No. Again...this ridiculous obsession with perfectly manicured lawns is more damaging than
anything.
• This is reasonable but there should be warnings with 1 month allowances and no fees.
• Yes this presents accessibility challenges for the blind/low vision members of our community.
• Good.
• Overhanging bushes that obstruct the sidewalk are reasonable to prohibit. But as worded this
includes grass growing in sidewalk cracks. This needs to be clearly spelled out in a quantifiable
way.
• That is a good thing
• Depends on how wide the sidewalk is. Also, how high up? What about trees???
• Progress would be creating a soft live edge to the hard edged sidewalks with a variety of
flowering plants. Safe walking routes still need to be possible so nothing should make that
impossible.
• Great, but isn’t this already the rule? A bigger problem has been clear views of public streets
from ally an ally or stop sign when the vegetation is not in the right-of-way.
• Support, sidewalks need to be safe and clear.
• Seems easy for this to be abused.
• It is not the property owner's duty to maintain the right-of-way. This sets a dangerous
precedent.
• Asinine. So you're saying everyone must trim and edge their sidewalk?
• Again this is prohibitive—maybe “obstruct” is a better word.
• Fine, but this calls for a lot of judgment calls.
• This is too vague.
• Makes sense, just don't go overboard. How far horizontally from the edge of the sidewalk?
• Very important for safety and ADA compliance
• Shrubs and trees should definitely be maintained properly
• What if you don’t have different vegetation/garden maintained?
• Agreed, but only if the vegetation inhibits the use of the walkway. Overhead vegetation from a
tree should be allowed as long as it is high enough.
• Ok, sidewalks are too narrow already.
• Agreed. Again, it needs to be passable.
• Vague and generalized. What is encroachment? To what degree? Growing into? Hanging over?
• So if my grass is over the sidewalk now i have to edge it? Aren't we being a little too nitpicky
here?
Currently, City policy (not code) requires a minimum of a 16-foot clearance between the street and
the bottom limb of any tree hanging over the street. It also requires a minimum of a 10-foot clearance
between the sidewalk and lowest limb. The proposed ordinance would codify these measurements.
Comments?
• This is ridiculous.
• Please approve
• As long as it starts being enforced!
• Agreed
• Absolutely
• No thanks, I don’t live in a HOA neighborhood for a reason :)
• CyRide doesn’t go on every street. Should be different for side streets at least
• Great idea.
• 6-8’ over sidewalk seems reasonable.
• I see the city doing some of this around town does the city pay for that or the owner?
• 10 foot is too high
• How am I to trim 16 feet in the air. Unrealistic for most people
• No
• Bo
• What’s the point of codifying it? Is it already working?
• No
• Provide assistance to property owners who cannot trim tree branches.
• If trees on ROW are too low, the city should cut them. Not homeowners' responsibility.
• Why? I don’t know anyone who is more than 6ft. Who are you protecting with this!? We do not
need Ames to look like some boring suburb
• You have more than enough to do, stop worrying about this crap
• I don't think its a huge deal, but if you think its a problem maybe have someone who goes
around trimming trees and bushes with the property owners permission and only fine if they
refuse. We pay enough in taxes
• I don't have the ability to trim the city's trees in the parking to 10' and 16'. Nor am I willing to
pay a tree company to do it. That should be the city's responsibility.
• city helping with trimming of this sort is probably ok, but fining resisdents is not.
• Please oppose any owner occupied housing maintenance code. We all live differently and have
different standards, maintenance codes DO NOT promote diversity and inclusion and the poor
are often targets of codes like this. The last thing the City of Ames needs to do is police
homeowners, passing any part of an owner occupied maintenance code will open the door to
expanding this power in the future. Please vote no.
• 8' should be sufficient f
• Terrific
• Stick to the policy no need for a code
• Good idea
• Also not your business
• Not everyone has the physical or financial means to trim the vegetation. If it's a problem, the
city should send crews through that take care of this service for free.
• What about trees that are on the extension and the responsibility of the city? I feel bad for
elderly and disabled people to have to start paying for tree service - feels like this should be a
city responsiblity?
• Again city needs to worry about parks, streets etc
• I do not support this. City crews came through my neighborhood recently and hacked the trees
in the right of way and it now looks ridiculous. Goodbye beautiful tree lined streets.
• Enforce existing codes on landlords
• Enforce existing codes on large landlord companies
• Every new tree I see the city install would need to be trimmed.
• Seems unecessary.
• why are you trying to run the whole city like north ridge
• fine
• Do we have many 10 foot tall citizens?
• This is harmful to the low income and punitive.
• Why codify it if the policy is good enough? Keep it flexible.
• Is this really a current problem?
• Please provide scientific research showing that this is detrimental to the health and safety of the
community.
• This sounds reasonable.
• They enforce this? I see silver maples lower than this.
• Then perhaps the City should better maintain their trees in the rights of way.
• So we are aloud to do anything to the city trees in the right of way?
• 2304 Kellogg Avenue
• I'm in favor of this
• This is silly. You can’t always trim a young tree to allow for this. The city itself has trees planted
in some places that wouldn’t conform to this standard.
• Seems reasonable.
• Would suggest a larger clearance from side walk to allow more adult trees to stay in front yards
• You aren’t honestly proposing paying some poor bastard to drive around with a tape measure
for this, right?
• I think this makes sense. Also hard to enforce. I have to question what will happen to the
homeowner if they can't maintain this. It is expensive to hire it done.
• Unnecessary and arbitrary. As trees grow they should be allowed to keep their branches without
such strict judgement.
• I oppose this and do not see this as a problem. If it is above the city sidewalk, the city alrady has
the right to trim it at their own expense and can go ahead and do so. Do not try to force
homeowners to do this when the tree above the sidewalk is the city's responsibility anyway.
• Again, how much notice are you giving people to deal with these things? Are there plans to help
out people who are elderly, disabled, or financially disadvantaged to deal with these issues? Or
is this just another back door to stealing their property from them.
• No comment
• Very bad idea. Pedestrians need 7' height clearance; CyRide buses are about 9' or 10' tall; I can
only see a need for 16' on a road that frequently carries semi-truck traffic (such as Grand Ave. I
STRONGLY encourage the city to not resort to the sorts of exaggerated restrictions favored by
traffic engineers. Those one-size-fits-all rules destroy aesthetic qualities of streetscapes.
• This is a great idea. Especially for limbs over sidewalk. Vote yes.
• Is this overhead clearance? Or a 10 foot bubble? Need clarification
• This is the city's responsibility
• Only if you pay for it. Didn't we learn with the derecho that if the city actually helped
homeowners with old trees that needed removal or trimming, we wouldn't have had the power
outages we had? Anyone remember the sump pump program after 1993 floods. You need that
for homeowners with tree issues. But I'm sure you're spending your time on painting bike lanes
and new ordinances.
• Difficult to codify in a concise manner
• The city can clean this up and should. Cheaper easier and more effective.
• The resources to enforce this would outweigh the benefit.
• NO
• The city can prune, it's their property.
• If the city wants these measurements, they should hire crews to maintain them and not use this
as a stick against property owners
• Please provide support for people needing assistance to meet this standard.
• This is needed for larger vehicles such as commerical trucks and RVs to get thru, low hanging
trees can damage these vehicles
• Okay is the city going to pay for the cost of cutting all the trees like this?
• I’d rather see it say you can’t hang over the sidewalk and have 2-3’ clearance along the edge of
the sidewalk. The city trimmed a tree I had that hung over the stop sign. I think that’s a good
idea. Not sure about the measurement though.
• Support
• Reasonable
• n/a
• Good
• I understand the reason for this but think 8 feet for limbs over the sidewalk might better.
• Okay with me, also - removing dead trees in a timely manner
• This is one I would lobby for. I can't count the number of times I've run into a tree or bush
running or on a bike because it's so low
• None
• Those number seem awfully arbitrary.
• This is currently not being enforced and a valid ADA issue.
• I think this is reasonable. The city should assist in trimming trees in easements.
• I support this.
• 10 seems high. 7 - 8 sounds better.
• Seems fine.
• The sidewalk requirement seems excessive. How many 9 foot tall pedestrians do you expect? I
think 8 feet is plenty.
• You can’t fine trees for noncompliant growth.
• The city should be responsible for the trees on the ROW.
• 16’ above the street makes sense. I don’t know anyone 10’ tall. Maybe 8’ above sidewalks.
• How were these standards of measurement determined, why 16’ and 10’ ? Is this up for debate
in historical districts or will owners be forced to remove old trees?
• This seems reasonable.
• 10 feet clearance for sidewalk seems excessive since most ceilings are only 8 foot and even
riding on a bicycle would seldom require significantly more than the person’s height.
• I feel that this is setting up residents to do dangerous things near roads to avoid being slapped
with a fine.
• It is not the property owner's duty to maintain the right-of-way and this sets a dangerous
precedent.
• Some trees are small. Thats impossible. Again this is just unnecessary meddling.
• I oppose
• Why these dimensions? Seems unnecessarily high.
• Old trees hanging over the streets provide character and shade and shouldn’t be unnecessarily
prohibited.
• Seems ok. I would be ok with 8 ft, but 10 probably allows tall parents to put their kids on their
shoulders.
• 703 16TH ST
• Like the reference to CyRide height being used for the height standard
• Makes sense for walking and driving purposes
• Seems like truck traffic will enforce this regardless of policy or code. Crunch!
• Doesn't the city itself maintain the tree trimming in these areas?
• This is another example of an ordinance that will disproportionately impact low-income and
economically disadvantaged members of our community.
• City should maintain limbs and trees by power lines..
• There is no reason to require 10 feet of clearance for a sidewalk. Under what circumstance
would 7 feet of clearance inhibit a pedestrian? Agree to the roadway portion of this.
• good to know. Some homeowners may not have the tools, equipment or physical capacity to
trim this high. Seems like this should be the responsibility of the City if it's in the parking ROW.
• Why?
• If the City owns the tress, then they should be responsible for these requirements.
• Trees on city property don't even meet this proposed ordinance.
• 709 Douglas Ave
The proposed ordinance would prohibit dense vegetation that could create ingress/egress issues from
a structure, create a fire hazard, or provide concealment for criminals. Comments?
• Sounds good but need better details
• This needs more specific definition. Far too loose of a definition. Criminals could conceal in a lot
of different kinds of vegetation, this would need to be much more narrowly and specifically
defined.
• Heavily wooded that are possibly in Forest Reserve could have complications.
• How does this impact natural wooded lots? Not all properties in the city are strictly manicured
lawns.
• Absolutely
• No thanks, I don’t live in a HOA neighborhood for a reason :)
• This is an overreach. Concealment for criminals? Maybe a habitat for animals. I’ll plant what I
want on my yard. Thank you. I know how much the city likes killing trees (Ioway Creek)
• Great idea.
• Yea!
• Why is the city punishing families for growing native plants that are better for the environment?
• Now this is just stupid… as in way too vague and every single situation would need be evaluated
• Too vague. We have lots with lots of trees and vegetation. Not realistic to expect these to be
cleared of undergrowth
• Native plants and trees need space to grow. This rule may limit necessary wildlife for our city to
remain in positive health.
• This is ridiculous
• How do you measure dense??
• I feel this targets people that may not have the financial means or time. Some people like
privacy too. Why does the city get to choose how i have my yard? How does that harm others?
• Yes
• Remove. This rule goes too far.
• Define this more strictly. "Dense vegetation" could be purposefully planted, and/or composed of
beneficial native plants. Fences could also "provide concealment for criminals," so that
justification is moot (remove it).
• Would there be exceptions for certain species of privacy bushes? I also do not think people are
harboring criminals in dense vegetation. If you choose to use that language, could you please
cite instances when this occurred or at least send me instances so I can share with the public. I
don’t think that verbiage will sit right with the public.
• This is stupid, vague, and serioly -- how many criminals do we have hiding in bushes?!?
• Dense vegetation is also good for the environment and ecosystem.
• Which criminals? This is Ames, Iowa. Calm down
• You have more than enough to do, stop worrying about this crap
• Does this include when people turn their yards into native prairies? Because that would be BS
then.
• really, concealment for criminals...
• I understand that it may be unsightly, but this feels like egregious overreach. A city-wide ban on
dense vegetation is RIDICULOUS
• What is your definition of dense vegetation? You need to be more specific in your rules or there
is going to be confusion leading to frustration. How big of a bush near a front door is too big?
What constitutes vegetation?
• concealemnt for criminals clause is absurd
• Please oppose any owner occupied housing maintenance code. We all live differently and have
different standards, maintenance codes DO NOT promote diversity and inclusion and the poor
are often targets of codes like this. The last thing the City of Ames needs to do is police
homeowners, passing any part of an owner occupied maintenance code will open the door to
expanding this power in the future. Please vote no.
• "...or provide concealment for criminals." How would such vegetation be defined? Which
bushes, shrubs or plants would not be acceptable?
• Criminals hiding in vegetation.. I can’t even (seriously shaking my head)
• What criminals are hiding in bushes? No- It’s my property I can have bushes all around
• That's 100% not the city's business to govern this.
• The idea that I need to change my landscaping in case of hiding criminals seems like a real reach.
Safety hazards are one thing, but this again sounds like a government overreach.
• This is really subjective - I have very intentional plantings around my house, and native grasses.
How would this work?
• Seems unnecessary and vague (open to interpretation)
• This item is too vague and seems over reaching
• Enforce existing codes on landlords
• Enforce existing codes on large landlord companies
• Is this really a problem?
• What is dense vegetation? How is this defined? Seems totally unnecessary. Concealment for
criminals? Really????
• virtually any shrub anywhere on a property could conceal criminals. remove that portion
• has there been actual problems with this or are you creating them in your head?
• fine
• This is excessive. Far too vaguely worded and unnecessarily controlling. Are there problems with
criminals hiding in the bushes in Ames often? If there is concern for house upkeep in Ames why
not implement programs that help homeowners upkeep their homes rather than penalize
them? This one sounds classist and racist.
• Absurd. When bushes are criminalized only criminals will have bushes.
• Who defines this? What fire hazard is dense healthy vegetation causing? Are criminals really
hiding in yards on a regular basis? I don't see how this could be needed.
• What counts as dense? Maybe I don't want to see my neighbors and wants trees? What if I have
a wooded lot? Parks are full of dense vegetation and I don't see the city getting rid of that.
• This is harmful to the low income and punitive.
• Goodbye anything interesting. Why do you have to keep pressing your 60s-ideal-white-picket-
fence vision of a home on me?
• Native plants have so many more benefits than turf grass which is essentially useless to the
environment. What property owners do with their vegetation should be up to them as they own
the property. I doubt there are many instances where criminals are hiding in vegetation.
• What is the justificiation for this? Is this really a current problem? I don't see this being an issue
anywhere. Who decides what counts as dense?
• Please provide scientific research showing that this is detrimental to the health and safety of the
community.
• This also sounds very broad. I feel like it needs to be more developed to show that these are
actual issues rather than property beauty standards.
• Vague.
• Define dense.
• So all the bushes next to every house needs to be removed and will look like every rental in
town ?
• Like hedges? How dense? I can see if something prevents front/back door ingress/egress or
egress from a basement egress window, that makes total sense. But some dry hedges near a
house, in the fall/winter, hopefully that isn't the intent.
• That is very dumb. Plants exist that are dense and beautiful but people aren't planting and
maintaining them for evil intentions.
• A fence provides concealment for criminals, why is living vegetation considered a problem when
a fence isn't?
• This seems vague. How dense would the vegetation need to be? We should not prevent people
from planting vegetation that would provide privacy.
• Vegetation that limits ingress and egress makes sense, but who decides if a bush could be used
for concealment by a criminal? Seems like a potential for overreach.
• This seems reasonable, but may be hard to enforce.
• Would omit criminal activity
• Does this include shrubs? What constitutes dense vegetation?
• Concealment for criminals? What is this, wartime Vietnam? No. This is too vague and while I
cannot put to words exactly why, it feels racist.
• Then maybe we should get rid of all the parks.
• What about privacy shrub fences? It seems like this rule would make them illegal.
• Absolutely offensive. An owner has the ability to decide what type of vegetation grows on their
own property. The question of ingress/egress, fire hazard, or concealment of criminals of each
individual's property is no business of the city, and this proposed code is a disturbing invasion of
our agency as private property owners.
• What counts as dense? Bushes? Are we not allowing bushes now? I oppose this.
• I oppose this. Vegetation is not hiding criminals, come on. Stop fear mongering.
• How do you define “dense vegetation”? Two shrubs together? Five? Sounds like living under
HOA rules that we avoided when choosing where to live.
• Proposed language is too vague and too overly inclusive. Limit violations to concrete situations
like the vegetation is blocking the home’s entrance or creating tripping hazards for persons who
must approach the house.
• Who is the authority who decides what constitutes dense vegetation? Define dense vegetation.
We purchased a home/property in 2007 here in Ames that had fallen into a state of disrepair
because the owner was elderly and disabled. Should she have taken better care of the property,
maybe. In reality, she was likely just trying to stay in her home as long as possible, which is a
benefit to her and the taxpayers. We have spent the last 14 years rehabbing that property and
making it into something livable and tidy. We did this at our own pace as time and funds
allowed. We didn’t need or want the city or complaining neighbors interfering. This is not
Ankeny, West Des Moines or Waukee. Stop pretending that it is. Ames has its gated
neighborhoods with Homeowners Associations. People agreed to live in those places and abide
by those HOA rules. Ames homeowners have the right to manage their properties as they see
fit. If neighbors and/or the city don’t like the way a property is being managed, rather than using
punitive measures, why don’t you work together to see if there is common ground that can be
found. This town claims to be all about inclusiveness and love. Yet all that these policies seem
designed to do is further the divisions in the community by pitting neighbor against neighbor,
and citizen against the city.
• The cops don't seem very concerned about criminals as they are the homeless.
• This is too vague and open to argument. Define.
• Overly broad. Any planting near a structure can be construed as a "fire hazard"; any dense
vegetation taller than 3' can conceal a squatting criminal. Enforcing this rule would destroy a
great amount of the aesthetic and ecological character of neighborhoods. This rule must be
much better-defined and much narrowly-tailored.
• This is too vague to be a helpful rule in Ames. What is “dense”? Is an arborvitae hedge too
dense? Is one bush too dense? What if you put three bushes in a row? You also state that dense
vegetation can be a fire hazard but at least when vegetation is growing it is not flammable.
Further, how many house fires started by brush fires or street muggings from concealed
criminals are we actually dealing with in Ames? I have not heard of this epidemic. Now the last
point I think is true, “displeasing to some neighbors” but the reverse can also be true. As an
ecologically minded person, I find uninterrupted expanses of monoculture lawn aesthetically
displeasing. I like being next to “dense” native plantings aesthetically. But since when is Ames
legislating based on the aesthetic preferences of neighbors? If people want to live with
encumbering rules, they can move into HOAs. Should we start legislating what color houses
people can have? Should we only allow certain types of doors and windows? Should all roofs be
one certain type based on aesthetic preference? I find the idea that Ames would make policy
based on non-problems and hypothetical aesthetic preferences of a minority disturbing.
• Vote yes.
• This is so subjective, and could mean anything from a hedge bush to a flower bed. It's basically
saying no landscaping at all. Un realistic.
• Who determines the cutoff between acceptable versus "dangerous" vegetation?
• disagree
• This is a ploy to turn Ames into an HOA. I didn't agree to this.
• Once again, are you paying for it? The elderly person in our neighborhood needed help with
vegetation and tree removal. Couldn't do it themselves and couldn't afford to pay for it. It cost
the city a lot more when that tree took out an entire area of the city when the derecho it. Let's
rethink ordinances and focus on helping PEOPLE.
• Must be clearly worded,
• Oh yes. We have such a horrible crime rate! (Sarcasm) I think the fire hazard and egress
concerns are totally valid though.
• This could be interpreted very widely. Any hedge or bush could conceal a criminal.
• NO
• What? No. My house, my landscape.
• Why is the city getting so far into the weeds (pun intended) in determining this regulation?
Don't micromanage citizens' lives.
• So do actual fences. This seems like overreach.
• Too vague. Are arbor vitae "dense vegetation"? You could hide behind those. Again, this should
be carefully considered, with both safety and feasibility/support in mind. Not every property
owner has the ability to take care of this (elderly/disabled/etc).
• No. This his would allow anyone to report anyone’s plants. I DO NOT agree.
• This might have to be clarified or taken up in a case by case basis.
• Support
• The city is not an HOA, the comment on "concealment for criminals" can easily be used for quite
literally any object that obstructs line of site, including all trees, the side of houses, a car, etc.
Does the city propose to ban all of these for the aesthetic enjoyment of their neighbors?
• This should be up to the homeowner if we wish to "conceal criminals", NOT the city. Many
homeowners plant vegetation to prevent "prying eyes". This is a bit overreaching.
• Good.
• This is poorly written and ill-defined. What is dense vegetation? The idea that it would provide
concealment for criminals seems silly. Does this include shrubs? Tall native vegetation like Joe-
pye weed? If this code is needed it should address whatever problem you are trying to fix
directly.
• Good idea
• Valid concern this would be difficult to address especially with such vague language.
• America!
• What’s the point of tending a garden if I can harbor felons within? ACAB
• Strongly disagree.
• If you're going to make such strict laws, you need to have community resources and help for
those struggling. Not everyone can afford or has the means to do suck yardwork!!
• Concealment from criminals? Is that a catch-all, meant to hide the fact that this is really about
outlawing anything except for a grass lawn?
• "Concealment for criminals" means what?!? This seems like a thinly veiled attempt to mandate
uniformity. I think it should not be passed. If people want to make it hard to get into their own
buildings, that's their problem.
• I support this. Particularly related to the fire hazard and ingress/egress issues given how close
together homes are in some neighborhoods.
• Vague. An appropriately sized hedge can do all these things.
• This is completely subjective. No foundation plantings allowed? The 100-year old spirea bush
and well-kept junipers could easily "conceal a criminal". Since when is live vegetation a fire
hazard? This ordinance seems like an attempt to have nothing more than grass around
foundations.
• That is going too far. You want to prevent people from having bushes near their front door?
• This should be up to the individual property owner.
• Hell no we need more dense and diverse vegetation around this town. Do we really have a
problem with criminals living in dense vegetation, really.
• Who decides what is concealment for criminals or what constitutes ingress/egress issue? This
item requires more details.
• What is dense? Grass is dense, it doesn’t obstruct things. Nothing about the code should be
allowed to just create a continuation of green grasses.
• Dense vegetation is poorly defined. Justification seems weak for protecting the homeowner but
don’t see any justification for protecting the health or safety of the public. People would differ
on aesthetic value, but I don’t think a single aesthetic should be enforced by city code.
• So no bushes or hedges
• How would this apply to shrubs and bushes planted around houses to block sound or views into
homes?
• Fire hazards are already illegal, and anything could be construed as 'concealment'. This is
deliberately vague and unhelpful.
• This should be up to the property owner, not the city.
• So bushes? What is dense vegetation?
• LET PEOPLE HAVE WHATEVER YARD THEY LIKE! ADDING THE CRIMINAL HIDEOUT BIT IS FEAR-
MONGERING AND STUPID.
• I oppose
• Lol what? Very poorly defined and unenforceable.
• This is way too restrictive and generic.
• Sounds awfully vague. How will this be interpreted in different neighborhoods?
• A solution in search of a problem?
• Who decides what is dense vegetation? Who decides what constitutes an area that can conceal
criminals? This is much too vague.
• Nope, this should not pass as is or at all. A tenet should be able to get in and out of their unit,
and firefighters as well. As for fire hazards, as long as powerlines to not have branches resting
on them, that should be ok. Climate change is going to bring us more forceful storms, but but
there is only so much that can be done. If the storm is going to take a tree down, it won't matter
if we trimmed, the powerline is probably going down too. You have good things here, but also
overstep quite a bit. Fenced in yards can conceal criminals. You getting rid of those too? I know
short ordinances are easier to read, but you're going to need more details on this one.
• Definition of dense? Is this limited to just building entrances/exits? Too broad.
• This feels vague, and the criminal concealment concern comes off as only fear mongering.
• Fair
• "Provide concealment for criminals" sounds a lot like victim-blaming. Also, this would prohibit
any tree beyond a certain diameter, as well as many landscaping features and gardens.
• Would this apply to native plants that have been landscaped
• Definition of dense vegetation????
• This is very broad and highly problematic for a residential home. What constitutes "dense
vegetation" ? Any one of the shrubs or bushes or even flower gardens we (and many others in
our neighborhood) have planted in our landscape could arguably be described this way. Trees
could be described as a violation or this ordinance as stated.
• Lol
• This is much too vague, and again the entire city is NOT an HOA, this should not be enforced.
• ok
• Agree.
• I have seen some lovely peonies/bushes that would have to go.
• Don't understand criminals concealmemt-vague concept.
• So I can't have a tree or a bush on my property? This seems way to vague.
• The weak part of #9 is "or provide concealment for criminals". There are many privacy fences,
etc., that provide concealment for criminals - I don't think we want ordinances written to best
suit catching criminals. A property owner has a right to privacy.
The proposed ordinance would limit turf grass to no higher than 12 inches. Comments?
• good idea
• Too much control
• It should be a shorter length
• Please approve
• 12 inches is very tall. Should be 6 inches and there should be first time forgiveness and an
understanding that during long periods of rain it may get slightly out of hand but should be
solved right away.
• 8" due to response if they do not comply. If they don't, mow it and lien the property.
• Prairie grass?
• No thanks, I don’t live in a HOA neighborhood for a reason :)
• I mow my grass, but I don’t care if other people do. The neighbors can mow if they find it
unpleasing in their sight.
• Dumb idea.
• Yes!
• What about our flowers and ferns in our landscaping. I want a nice tall sunflower in my back
yard
• Now you are going to regulate landscaping?
• Other than looking unsightly, does this really hurt anyone?
• This is a rule straight out of a home owners association and should not be city law. Further, Iowa
weather could encourage a lawn to nearly grow to that height in perfect conditions in about a
week. This is unnecessary and overly burdensome to many city residents.
• Have fun fielding all the phone calls from nosy, busy body neighbors
• Again, i feel that this is where the city needs to come together and not target those that may
not have the time or money to care for their yards the way others feel that they should.
• Yes
• Provide examples of turf grass.
• Set a timeimit. Maybe the homeowner is away on vacation and we get a lot of rain.
• City property frequently has grass over 12"
• While I mow my grass regularly it is not the governments job to regulate lawn height. There are
more important things. Fix your police and rental issues you don’t have time to regulate this
• You have more than enough to do, stop worrying about this crap
• If I wanted to live in an HOA, I would have moved into one.
• I cannot believe the city wants to become an HOA
• Please oppose any owner occupied housing maintenance code. We all live differently and have
different standards, maintenance codes DO NOT promote diversity and inclusion and the poor
are often targets of codes like this. The last thing the City of Ames needs to do is police
homeowners, passing any part of an owner occupied maintenance code will open the door to
expanding this power in the future. Please vote no.
• Great. Our neighbor never mows back yard
• Usually it tips over before getting 12” but some months money is tight and I can’t always buy
gas to keep up with the Jones’
• It’s pathetic
• This is 100% not the city's business to govern this. The American lawn is a social construct that is
not logical or necessary.
• Why? To what benefit? If it's not the right of way and interfering with visibility, what is
dangerous about tall grass? Why can't a homeowner decide if they want a tall grass prairie or
meadow?
• NO - sometimes it is good for grass to be able to go to seed.
• I support this
• Enforce existing codes on landlords
• Enforce existing codes on large landlord companies
• What is turf grass? There are some grasses that are designed to grow to about 12 inches and
then flop over for a cascading effect. Is the grass measured vertically? Do you stand it up to
measure it? Seems unnecessary and on the short side.
• "no mow may" helps pollinators and letting grass go to seed helps it spread. Also for those not
able to mow, it is expensive to hire. Once a month mowing may be all they are able to have
done
• no just no
• sure
• Why?
• While we have 10’ tall citizens, apparently many criminals are hiding in foot high grass. Who
knew?
• How is this measured? Who decides what is turf grass?
• Why? I can't find any information that doesn't come from a biased source (lawn company that
wants to mow more often) about why this would ne necessary for a health or safety reason.
• This is harmful to the low income and punitive. Maybe try removing these excessive restrictions
on rentals instead of adding them to owner occupied homes. These reeks of SCAN
neighborhood overreach. The state had to shut that down. Learn from that lesson.
• Turf grass is almost useless compared to planting native grasses or plants. Native plantings have
so many benefits compared to turf grass. The maintenance of turf grass using gas mowers
pollutes the environment. To me, this proposal is petty and unnecessary.
• What is the justificiation for this? I could not find any scientific justificaiton for this. How is the
grass measured? If it flops over is it no longer 12 inches tall?
• Please provide scientific research showing that this is detrimental to the health and safety of the
community.
• I think this isn't something the city should regulate. If someone wants to have high grass in their
yard and it's not affecting visibility on the street, that's their freedom to do so. The City is not an
HOA. These rules seem like they are only to appease others view of the property, not because it
actually hurts anyone. What if owners are poor and their mower broke? What if they are elderly
and cannot mow? These rules focus too much on property rather than people, which shows that
the city favors the weather and makes like harder for the poor.
• I think this is good.
• It's my lawn. When the city gets to the point where it's issuing fines because someone's grass is
too tall, they're significantly overstepping
• I would hope this wouldn't apply to reconstructed prairie areas...
• I'm in favor of this
• Why 12 inches, grass needs to be mowed at 3”!
• Probably a good idea.
• Seems reasonable.
• Agree
• The city should be promoting the planting of natural prairie. This is Iowa. Just because you like it
to look like clean cut suburbia, doesn’t make it right, or even objectively pretty.
• I moved from small town Iowa to Ames to get away from regressive regulations. The ecological
and environmental benefits of longer turf grass are well documented. How can the city maintain
its reputation as a garden friendly, environmentally conscious town with such onerous and
invasive policies?
• Turf grass is healthier if left to grow longer, crowds out weeds, reduces allergens and reduces
pollution by decreased mowing. The city should embrace alternate lawns instead of antiquated
ideas of beauty.
• I oppose this. It is ecologically and environmentally bad to insist on this. This would prevent
home owners from growing grass seed to reseed their lawns naturally and would require they
purchase more grass seed. This perpetuates the historic racist ideas that manicured lawns
means you own slaves and are wealthy. Just gross. Lawn mowers create air and noise pollution.
They cause gas spills. All around bad idea.
• Again, is there grace here for the handicapped, elderly, and poor? Three years ago, my son was
in the hospital for 19 days. The length of the grass in my yard was the last thing on my mind. If
the city had attempted to cite me because my grass was too long, the Facebook post about that
would have made headline news to show this city for the heartless jerks they seem determined
to be.
• We live in a prairie. We should have native plants. Aid should be given to anyone unable to mow
their lawn.
• No comment
• Sounds good, as long as the city recognizes the difference between turf grass and ornamental
grasses or prairie grasses that are not planted with the intention of cutting them during the
growing season.
• I actually don’t have a problem with this per say, but would like to exclude the month of March
as many lawns have spring ephemerals that come up in them and provide a vital source of
nectar for pollinators in the early spring. Also, I just want to explicitly state in the code that this
does not apply to native vegetation plantings or gardens, only to turf grass.
• Perhaps issue a warning that gives homeowners 48 hrs to comply. If they fail to comply, have
the city mow and charge the owners.
• Agree
• This is insanity. Some people allow it to seed to reinforce their turf.
• Gonna mow it while I'm on vacation? If not, I'll mow it after I return. We needed to mow 3
times in 10 days in May after the rains.
• That will be as difficult to enforce as the snow removal ordnance
• You are expecting us all to live in a gated community of old white people who have the time and
interest in tattling on their neighbors. All of these policies are threats to hard working middle
and lower class individuals. If I wanted this I could live in a gated retirement community. This is
basically punishing poor people for being poor: its discrimination.
• Reasonable
• NO
• Lawns should be banned. Residential housing/lawns contribute to global warming, the killing of
native pollinators and butterflies, the poisoning of our water with pesticides and herbicides and
fertilizer. Not to mention the use of gas and oil in lawn mowers. Plant native. :)
• Why? Some people like longer grass.
• Maybe have a declaration for prairie or natural grass areas, but it should not be a whole
property, limit the square footage
• No. Besides this being overbearing, the noise pollution would be horrendous.
• Agree.
• Don't support
• Some native grasses fall under turf grass classification. The proposal needs to provide explicit
exceptions, or be ignored.
• n/a
• Fine.
• I do not support this. I typically mow my lawn but I do not see the need for this.
• How to enforce?
• Valid. But a first step might be contacting the owner to see if they are able to mow. Some may
not be able to due to health concerns and might require volunteer assistance.
• This should be up to the homeowner to have their lawn the way they want.
• ?
• Is this a municipality or a homeowners association? I can’t tell anymore.
• Strongly disagree.
• Ridiculous!! Longer grass is actually good for pollination, bees, birds and other wildlife.
• This is arbitrary, and once again would have the most negative impact on the elderly, disabled,
and low income members of the community who cannot always maintain their lawn.
• This is anti-pollinator, ableist, and discriminates based on income. I think we should be
encouraging non-turfgrass lawns instead. The City of Ames should promote a "pollinator lawn"
and "food not lawns" mandate.
• Unreasonable. Prohibits establishing a natural prairie, and targets elderly and underserved
individuals.
• i support this
• Why? Why is the city trying to regulate the height of grass on private property? Ames is not a
HOA.
• No opinion. Do you think that will help with the guy off of Eisenhower who claims a native
American religion prevents him from mowing?
• Watch me put my lawn into CRP.
• This should be up to the individual property owner.
• Progress would be removal of all turf grass, save money, save time, increase habitat, improve
rain water retention and most importantly make yards beautiful instead of sterile grass plains.
• What is turf grass?
• Who cares? If you want to live in a place like this live where you have an hoa.
• Seems like an aesthetic requirement and not based upon public health or safety. Is it really
needed at all?
• This looks like a solution looking for a problem. People with more natural yards that are pretty
but not the typical will get hurt by this. Also, an excuse to fine people.
• The obsession with the American lawn is partly to blame for water quality issues and water
supply problems. Don't make it worse, please.
• Should be up to the property owner.
• Most of these seem intent on hurting people who don’t have a lot of money
• Just.. stop.
• I oppose.
• Sure, fine.
• As long as this wouldn’t include perennials and flowers
• I'm not sure what "turf grass" is, but I think eyesore be moving away from "grass" which is
environmentally problematic and towards water and soil conserving native plants
• What is turf grass?
• Some busybodies can't mind their own business. And people who don't mow may want to
switch over to a prairie garden. Prairie grasses would slow down storm runoff.
• Thank you!! So irritated when people don’t mow their lawns.
• You guys do a pretty good job at fining or warning people when their grass is too tall anyway,
seems no different from before
• Exception for native prairie restoration?
• why?
• Not everyone maintains turf to the same standards or believes that is beneficial for the
environment. Many folks participate in No-Mow May to support insect populations. Not all
lawns are typical Kentucky Bluegrass turf--if someone has planted a sedge in place of turf, will
they be expected to maintain it to the same standards as KBG? I also enjoy seeing my neighbors
lawns blooming with daisies in late spring and would miss that if they were required to mow the
turf around it--they would likely just mow everything down.
• Can be annoying I guess, shouldn’t owners have the choice if they own the property?
• ok
• Yes, please!
• What about ornamental grasses?
• How is someone not mowing their lawn really a problem
• I don't support #10. A meaningful #10 would limit the widespread use of pesticides and
chemicals that kill our pollinators and birds. We need to get up to better standards in 2021 with
the knowledge we have.
The proposed ordinance would prohibit trees that have been deemed dangerous from remaining on a
property. Comments?
• Who decides this? again how is the process. Warning first?
• Reasonable
• I think you would have to have an expert decided and only make them remove it is danager to a
neighborh, but tree removal is not cheap what if they don't have the money
• Who deems them dangerous? Could the city put a plan in place to reduce the burden of income
restricted folks for tree removal? For instance, if the City deems it dangerous, the city removes
the tree and captures the cost over a 5 year period through property taxes?
• Agreed
• How is the dangerousness determined? By whom and what standard? Again. Some of us have
natural wooded lots. Trees fall. It is part of what they do. It’s habitat.
• Absolutely
• If you don’t own the tree (local government) it’s not your decision to make.
• If the tree isn’t near the sidewalk than it’s not the citys problem. It’s the owners liability.
Correct?
• Great idea.
• A dead/near dead tree that is not deemed dangerous still needs to be removed.
• Yes!
• Who deems the trees dangerous? And what constitutes dangerous?
• Good
• Who gets to make that decision..especially since insurance companies don’t care unless the
trees falls… if there was some relief on taking trees down before they fall.
• Depends upon how a tree is deemed dangerous. This could be really expe3and cost thousands
of dollars
• Make sure definitions are clear and not ambiguous. Will the city pay for any removal services if
in part of public space?
• Is the city going to pay the $1000’s of dollars to cut them down?
• So if you are poor, how do you pay for this?
• Yes
• Define "dangerous" more strictly. Provide assistance to owners in removing dangerous trees.
• Deemed dangerous by whom? Define.
• This will disproportionately impact low income residents who can't afford tree removal
• Who will deem them dangerous?? Upset neighbors or arborists??
• You have more than enough to do, stop worrying about this crap
• Who is deeming them dangerous?
• Are you going to pay for tree removal for those who can't afford it? Tree removal is EXPENSIVE.
This will unduly penalize the poor
• Who decides what is dangerous? As we found out last August any tree in a strong wind could
present a risk. I used to get yelled at by a neighbor that hated our tree branches crossing her
property line.
• way to much room in 'deemed dangerous'
• Please oppose any owner occupied housing maintenance code. We all live differently and have
different standards, maintenance codes DO NOT promote diversity and inclusion and the poor
are often targets of codes like this. The last thing the City of Ames needs to do is police
homeowners, passing any part of an owner occupied maintenance code will open the door to
expanding this power in the future. Please vote no.
• Tree removal and even tree maintenance is incredibly expensive. If people are fined on top of
that, it doesn't seem like that would help. Perhaps there could be a way for the city to loan
money for bringing trees up to code.
• agree
• Deemed dangerous wow. That tree over there is a threat to the community?
• I agree on this
• No. Government overreach.
• If the tree is on your private property and not hanging over into the public roadway or sidewalk,
or would if it fell, it shouldn't be anyone's business?
• Who defines dangerous
• What is a dangerous tree. Too vague.
• Too vague. Leaves far too much to interpretation.
• This item also seems vague
• Enforce existing codes on landlords
• Enforce existing codes on large landlord companies
• This is why I have homeowners insurance. Mandate insurance covers these costs and sure.
Otherwise you pay for it if you want it out before insurance is willing too.
• Seems unnecessary
• worry about stuff that matters
• fine
• This needs better definition, and also makes it harder for people who may have trouble
affording tree removal to actually afford tree removal. Again, why penalize people who need
help maintaining their property?
• Did tree removal companies suggest this one?
• Who decides it is dangerous? Seems like an insurance issue, not a city problem. My insurance
company said I could send a letter to my neighbor telling them their tree was dead to shift
liability to them and get them to take it down.
• This is harmful to the low income and punitive.
• What is the justificiation for this? This seems like a private problem not a public one.
Government overreach run rampant.
• Please provide scientific research showing that this is detrimental to the health and safety of the
community.
• I think it is important to define what makes a tree dangerous. Also, if the tree borders both
properties, who is at fault? What about people in poverty? They can't afford to remove
something so big. If a tree needs to be removed, property owners should not be charged.
Especially since all of us were affected by the Derecho. Families already had thousands of dollars
worth of damages to their homes, now we'd be making the lives of the poor even harder.
• Vague.
• Define dangerous.
• Seems reasonable with due process.
• Is it accompanied by a grant process for requesting financial assistance to remove trees?
• I'm in favor of this
• How will the city determine if it is deemed dangerous and what will the exact recourse be. How
many days/months will homeowners have to remove costly trees if a complaint is made. Who
makes the determination that a tree is unsafe? Can a second opinion be made by a reputable
tree company?
• Some property owners may not have the resources to remove a tree in the time frame allotted.
How is the city going to aid in these circumstances?
• Seems reasonable.
• Would need more definition of dangerous
• Sounds like a city problem, not a homeowner problem. If you want me to remove a tree, you
better pay me the several thousand it costs for that.
• Who is deeming them dangerous? This seems subjective and could be a legal battle between
neighbors waiting to happen.
• If they are in the ROW, I have no objection. Otherwise, it should be the decision of the property
owner as to whether a tree is "dangerous" and should be removed.
• Who decides what is dangerous?
• Seems like an insurance issue, not a city issue. I oppose this.
• Tree trimming and removal is extremely expensive. It is also hard to get trimmers quickly. Allow
City assistance at a reduced charge.
• Again, who gets to determine which trees are dangerous? I am currently in a battle with an
apartment complex over a tree, which is near their property, but on my property. We have
offered them the opportunity to trim the tree over the years, but now they want it taken down.
Since it is my property, I have the right to make the determination of whether it comes down or
not. I have tried to play nice with them, but that is not the point. This apartment complex would
likely love to take down a number of trees on my property, and this ordinance looks like a
perfect opportunity for you to allow them control over my property. This is the same apartment
complex that dumps their excess rainwater runoff onto my property, ruins my fence by allowing
their snow removal company to push all their snow onto it, and balks when asked to replace the
fence. I don’t doubt for a minute that your Property Maintenance Appeals board will likely be
designed to benefit them over me. That’s the way every decision that has been made so far has
gone.
• Landlords should have to deal with this, not tenants. Those who own their own homes should
be able to get a voucher to remove trees if they are unable to afford it.
• No comment
• Good idea, if you have an arborist who can make this determination.
• Unless the city proposes to assist in the removal of said trees, this would be unbelievably
expensive to the homeowner. What then is the incentive for a homeowner to have any trees on
their property at all?
• Vote yes. Also removal of dead saplings and shrubs.
• Only if you're going to also provide financial assistance in removing those trees--not everyone
can afford this at any given time when the city decides it's a problem.
• Deemed dangerous by who? Need more info
• Who deems it dangerous?
• Once again, are you paying for it? The derecho damaged so many trees and many do not have
the resources to remove them. Remember again, the sump pump program in 1993 that helped
with water after a flood. How about a tree program to deal with damaged trees after the
derecho.
• Who makes these decisions?
• The city can clean them up then for free or a very small charge. People would be tending this
stuff if theybhad the resources and the means. I can’t wven find someone to haul away dirt on
my property. Puttingbhighly restrictive ordinances in places and then not providing a reasonable
means to achieve them is setting people up for failure/ its like you don’t want homeowners in
this city.
• Based on a trained arborist’s decision founded upon the tree’s actual health? Sounds
reasonable.
• NO, who is doing the assessments?
• Dangerous to people or to property?
• Who gets to deem a tree dangerous? If I don't like my neighbor's tree can I make up a reason
why it is dangerous to my property?
• Please also provide support for people to take care of this who may need assistance.
• Is the city going to offer money to people to fix their trees then? Because there are still many
broken or fallen trees from the derecho that are not taken care of because it’s expensive and
people haven’t even been able to work this year.
• Agree. There again, lots of people can’t afford or physically deal with tree issues. There again,
maybe a group of volunteers to do property clean up. The neighbors are the corner from me
asked their neighbor if they could cheap her with all the trash that was piling up in front of her
house. She said “No”. The city finally served her and came in and cleaned it up anyway. What do
you do about people with mental health problems that don’t see junk as trash?
• Support
• How does the city propose to assist lower income owners who cannot afford the hundreds to
thousands that tree removal costs?
• Who will decide what is dangerous?? This is too vague.
• This is rather ambiguous. Who deems "dangerous"? A professional? Member of the city council
are not tree professionals.
• Good
• I recognize this may be a problem but tree removal is very expensive. I suspect most home
owners would be happy to remove dangerous trees but cost is prohibitive. It would be
wonderful to have some form of assistance from the city for this, perhaps in a grant program.
This cost does tend to hit the older neighborhoods, with more affordable housing, much harder
than new developments.
• Good idea
• Excellent point. This might have saved a lot of money and time with the derecho.
• Is it bothering you?
• Sounds like someone is creating a nice and lucrative, contract-based position perfect for the
modern crony. Where do I sign up to throw my hat in the ring?
• Again, provide resources! Cutting down and removing trees are expensive!
• Who would deem the trees dangerous? Would the city pay for an arborist? Would the
compaintant pay?
• Who determines what's dangerous? Multiple opinions should be involved.
• I support this--could there be a grant or fund to help low-income folks?
• Please concisely define dangerous.
• Who deems a tree on private property dangerous?
• Good idea.
• Again, derecho.
• Deemed by who? For what period of time? You are going to cause so many problems for low-
income folks with this. Why are you doing this when we are all just struggling to come out of a
pandemic???
• We need broken and fallen trees for habitat. If they are hanging over a street or sidewalk fine.
• Is there a city department that will clear them or does expense fall on home owner for tree
removal? Does stump need to be removed?
• Dangerous to whom? By whom? Is there an appeal process? An abitility to mitigate the risk
instead of remove?
• I contacted my tree service last fall and am still waiting for derecho damage (broken limbs) to be
removed!
• Can we propose that council people that have been deemed useless be prohibited from
remaining in Ames? Again, an excuse to fine people.
• How would the city deem a tree dangerous? Would all ash trees be deemed dangerous even if
they’re being treated because of the emerald ash bore?
• Liability law already covers this. Redundant and unwelcome.
• If they are dangerous to the public yes. Otherwise, no.
• Who deems a tree "dangerous"? Lacks definition.
• Who deems them dangerous and what if the property has a large enough forested area to let
them safely fall in place? This seems too restrictive.
• How would one know if a tree is dangerous? What constitutes a dangerous tree? Who decides
that?
• This could be ok. Depends on how and who decides this. The decision process could end up
being highly subjective. There is a difference of standards between some tree service companies
and arborists.
• Is there funding that can be requested as tree removal is expensive? Or grants?
• What does that even mean? Very arbitrary rule. Who deems them dangerous?
• Agreed, this is a safety concern.
• What if a homeowner can't afford to pay for tree removal? Does the city forester determine if
they are "dangerous?"
• yes
• Who would pay for the removal?
• Again, who decides what is dangerous? All trees have limbs that could fall. This is much too
vague.
• There should be a city assistance program to help property owners pay for the removal over
time.
The proposed ordinance would prohibit conditions that harbor vermin from existing on any property.
Comments?
• Good idea
• Unreadonable
• Yes but need more details to open ended
• Absolutely! Get rid of major overgrowth and piles of junk sitting around.
• Agreed
• Again. What does this mean? Is this for structures? Do I have to somehow remove all the wildlife
on my property?
• Absolutely
• No thanks, I don’t live in a HOA neighborhood for a reason :)
• What is a vermin? Seems people think wildlife are vermin.
• Great idea.
• Yes
• Define these conditions and give examples? Many of your citizens choose to plant natural grass
and flowers in their yard to help the environment.
• This is vague the mice and bunnies are literally in everything.
• Again … this includes basic landscaping… way above and beyond the city’s purview.
• Too subjective. Farm houses get an occasional mouse in the fall. Nature happens
• Please include other pests such as cockroaches.
• This leaves too much open to interpretation
• Extremely vague.
• Yes
• Provide examples...
• Define these conditions.
• Too unrealistic - a compost pile, could harbor vermin. Bats get in attics. Mice sneak in where
ever they can. This is ridiculous.
• Who determines what this entails? This seems to be very opinion based and not rooted in
science. What one person seems excessive could actually create healthy soil ecosystems.
• How will you define these conditions???? Will it be vague so you can just target minorities and
poor people?? Or will you actually define these terms explicitly
• You have more than enough to do, stop worrying about this crap
• as in ...? You need to be more specific. There are chipmunks that live in my yard and I'm not
doing anything to harbor them, I'd have to kill them to get rid of them.
• Way too broad, invasive language and government overreach.
• possums can live in ames, its fine.
• Please oppose any owner occupied housing maintenance code. We all live differently and have
different standards, maintenance codes DO NOT promote diversity and inclusion and the poor
are often targets of codes like this. The last thing the City of Ames needs to do is police
homeowners, passing any part of an owner occupied maintenance code will open the door to
expanding this power in the future. Please vote no.
• agree
• This is laughable, ‘vermin’ exist everywhere. I enjoy the rabbits and nature
• too vague.
• What’s vermin to the city?
• Absolutely not. This is government overreach.
• Too vague, "vermin" can be applied to most animals if someone considers them a nuisance
instead of a part of the ecosystem.
• This is so subjective, and I would think that other laws in place would address if something were
to get "out of hand" and in need of City intervention.
• Who defines this
• Cite examples in the final ordinance. This Notice is rather vague.
• Too vague and over reaching. Vermin can exist on any property they choose.
• Enforce existing codes on landlords
• Enforce existing codes on large landlord companies
• So having garbage bins? Having a deck? Having a shed on blocks? Having a stack of firewood?
These are all conditions that could harbor vermin.
• What does this even mean? What is a condition that harbors vermin?
• why do you care???
• yep
• Too vague.
• Ugh. This is vague and could be so easily abused.
• Conditions like having any vegetation at all?
• Who decides this? What conditions harbor vermin? Who decides what is vermin? My neighbor
hates rabbits but I encourage them with plants they like... am I harboring them?
• What counts? Compost piles? Yard waste used in the garden? Gardens? Vegetables attract
chipmunks, does that mean they aren't allowed?
• This is harmful to the low income and punitive. WAY TOO VAGUE. Way too much room for
abuse.
• Lol good way to get rid of anyone who wants anything other than a conventional lawn of a
short, monoculture grass
• Define vermin. We need to learn to live in harmony with the environment that surrounds us.
Disrupting nature has many negative consequences.
• What is the justificiation for this? I don't see this as current issue facing Ames.
• Please provide scientific research showing that this is detrimental to the health and safety of the
community. How is this defined? Who defines it? One man's junk is another's treasure. A natural
native prarie harbors "vermin" does it not? What is vermin? Woodchuck? Fox? Mice? All
essential parts of the ecosystem. We do not live in a bubble. We must coexist.
• This is too broad to enforce. Very old houses will always harbor vermin, regardless of all the
steps taken to prevent it.
• Vague.
• As in wildlife habitat? Vermin are necessary for ecosystems that want to retain predators like
raptors and foxes.
• Needs more definition.
• This definition is way too loose
• I'm in favor of this
• Far too wide reaching. Does this include bunnies? My neighbor has a shed that has bunnies
under it and they eat my tulips. Can I call to complain and have them have to remove their
shed? Our yard has a tree that has a squirrel living in it. Does that count too? What about
another neighbor that has a woodchuck living in their yard? Can I call the city and have them
remove anything from their yard to force the woodchuck to move on? If you are going to
legislate property owners you have to be very specific. I grew up in this town next to a horrible
neighbor who called the city for EVERYTHING. Wind blowing leaves in her yard, rain water
rolling downhill into her yard... etc. you give some citizens the ability they will call perfectly
acceptable homeowners for crazy reasons.
• This is silly, vermin will always find a place to go. Even under a brand new, nice looking deck.
• Seems reasonable, but may need to be more specific.
• Would need more definition of vermin
• Again very vague.
• Again, this sounds vaguely racist.
• Are you all going to go after all the fox dens and rabbit holes? Nature provides most of the
conditions.
• No one wants vermin living on their property. This code is unnecessary and arbitrary. Such open
ended language creates unhealthy tension, suspicion, and conflict between residents and the
city. It's psychologically unhealthy for residents to be constantly concerned about whether they
will be fined for the conditions of their property.
• What harbors vermin? Vegetable gardens? This is absurd.
• I oppose this. Seems like it isn't a problem.
• “Conditions that harbor vermin” is also know as habitat. A stack of shrub branches in my
backyard is great habitat for many animals that support the many levels of a healthy ecosystem.
• This is confusing and too open-ended
• Verify vermin are actually living in place before citation.
• Please define these conditions. Define vermin. This is so vague that virtually anything from a pile
of wood used for a fireplace, to tall grass could apply. Is that deliberate? Honestly, this entire list
is simply a means for the city to enter private property and dictate to homeowners how they
can live. I would greatly enjoy seeing you hauled into court to attempt to defend these policies,
except that as a taxpayer, I get to pay the bill for that too. STOP.
• Landlords are responsible for any pests and must alert their tenants of any infestation. I have
lived in three places in Ames that had cockroaches or bedbugs and were left for tenants to deal
with.
• No comment
• Again, overly broad. Any garden can (and probably does) conceal rodents.
• This is probably also fine but I think it needs to be clarified greatly. First, what is a “vermin”? Is a
squirl a vermin? Is a robin a vermin? Are deer vermin? Are only cockroaches, rats, and mice
vermin? Perhaps what this should actually be called is “no trash in your yard.”
• This is also ridiculous. The city will really inspect every yard for vermin habitat?
• Vote yes. Perhaps offer certain amount of time for compliance after a warning. Then have city
remove at owners expense for non compliance.
• How exactly do I keep animals out of the garden? It's gonna happen, there's deer and rabbits all
over this town and it's actually kind of nice, so I don't see how to keep wildlife off the property.
• That will be impossible to enforce.
• Gardens and parking deck harbor vermin too. They are a necessity to our ecosystem.
• Great, so the neighbor will have to get rid of his pile of wood for his fireplace? Rain barrels need
to go away? All those sheds in people's backyards that have bunnies under them need to be
destroyed? That's about 70% of the sheds in the town.
• Here again--problematic to define
• You are expecting us all to live in a gated community of old white people who have the time and
interest in tattling on their neighbors. All of these policies are threats to hard working middle
and lower class individuals. If I wanted this I could live in a gated retirement community. This is
basically punishing poor people for being poor: its discrimination.
• Reasonable, but could be widely interpreted.
• NO, by who's definition?
• Every property harbors vermin. Please. That is a slippery slope. Mice can get in anywhere. Every
house could potentially have "vermin". No.
• This is too loosely worded and could be prone to enforcement abuse
• Too vague.
• I mean... anything can harbor mice. I don’t agree with this.
• Agree.
• Support
• This proposal is far too unrestricted, and could be applied in innumerable instances.
• n/a
• Definition of vermin? What one person considers vermin another could consider nature (bees,
voles, etc.)
• Honestly, I have no idea what this means. I am not even clear what qualifies as vermin, let alone
what conditions harbor them.
• Good idea
• How can this be defined?
• Start with city hall!
• Start with an investigation of the Suidae infestation over at City Hall. Just the other night I
witnessed one of them pointing what looked to be an AR15 down 6th St.
• Seems like a slippery slope.
• This needs to be quite a bit more specific.
• Reasonable at first glance, but may be hard to define and interpret fairly.
• Unreasonable. Anything can harbor “vermin”.
• YES-the junk and vegetation have led to rats in our area as well as an overabundence of
raccoons and skunks
• I have cardboard boxes in my basement. Would you like to inspect them for vermin?
• How will such conditions be spelled out? This is completely subjective and unmeasurable.
Rabbits nest in my flower beds; do I need to rip them out? Sparrows and starlings as well as
songbirds feed at my bird feeders. No more bird feeders? "Vermin" needs to be clearly defined
and the prohibited conditions need to be codified.
• You need to define that better. Who decides what such a condition is?
• How do you define this??? If I have a hole somewhere and mice are getting into my house, are
you going to fine me???
• Who decides what vermin are? We need more natural habitat and animals on all properties. If
they are inside and creating an unhealthy living environment then they need to be moved
outside into the yards and right of ways.
• Does this include compost? Wood piles? Bushes? Prairie grass? This needs much clarification.
• Seems reasonable but what defines vermin?
• I don’t think I like vermin either, but I wonder how well “conditions that harbor vermin” is
defined. Does it include both food and shelter? Is there a universal definition of vermin?
• This seems vague and subjective to enforce.
• Having food in shelves harbors vermin. Having a vehicle in a garage harbors them.
• 'Vermin' are wildlife, and as such should be protected and given ample habitat including within
city limits. This is simply obtuse.
• This would take a lot of clarification as to what those conditions are.
• Wildlife exists. LET IT EXIST.
• I oppose
• Again, lacks definition. How would you enforce such a thing?
• Would this be used against properly maintained compost piles? If so, this is bar code and would
be used against the intention.
• What are vermin? Foxes were here before humans, and almost all of us are enjoying their
return; how do you get rid of mice; possums and bat's cut down the mosquito population. We
want these creatures on our properties
• This is much too vague, and virtually everyone in the city will be in violation of it at some point.
• I challenge you to define vermin. Urban ecosystems provide essential niche habitats and
services that have been destoryed elsewhere. I absolutely do NOT want this to pass. NO, NO,
NO!
• What conditions? Having a shed could be considered conditions for harboring vermin since they
could technically live in it.
• Very important especially if older dependent adults or children are residents from a Mandatory
Reporter standpoint.
• Unfortunately you cannot stop vermin a lot of times, sounds like you don't like bushes
• this is too vague, almost any lush garden is likely to include areas that could harbor vermin
• Define vermin, are we talking about the local foxes, possums, raccoons?
• This is also overly broad and ill-defined and as such seems to invite unneccessary complaints and
enforcement costs. For example, over the winter, we had mice move into our air conditioning
unit despite having regular maintenance and care. According to this, our neighbors could report
that we are in violation of this ordinance because we have an air conditioning unit on our
property.
• Release snakes…
• This needs to be more specific. Even low decks would technically fit this description but you
should never enforce enclosing a deck structure.
• Does this mainly refer to garbage and such that would attract rats? What about conditions that
attract woodchucks, foxes, opossum (dens under sheds)? Hopefully there will be more
clarification, because wildlife is a good thing!
• yes
• What are vermin? If vermin live in the city are we supposed to kill them then? How do we stop
the mice?
• I can't agree with #12 as written. I remember reading an article by Steve Lekwa about how
important it is to leave areas in your yard in the fall where creatures-this includes birds- can find
shelter and food in the winter. Yards should never be completely cleared in the fall.
The proposed ordinance would prohibit excavations or holes that are deeper than 3 feet in the ground
remaining open or uncovered for more than 30 days unless part of an active construction project.
Comments?
• good idea
• Sometimes we can’t get contractors in line fast enough to get her work done.
• please approve
• Yes
• 15 days
• Absolutely
• No thanks, I don’t live in a HOA neighborhood for a reason :)
• No comment
• Great idea.
• Good
• Does this count when the city leaves a hole?
• Would this also apply to some uncovered egress windows
• Not seeing an issue here
• No
• This seems about the only reasonable thing I’ve read so far
• So you are saying all construction must be complete in 30 days? How would the new high school
have dealt with this?
• No
• Good idea
• Fair
• How will you define active construction project? What happens when someone runs into
temporary financial troubles. These veiled attacks at the poor are not as subtle as you think
• You have more than enough to do, stop worrying about this crap
• ok
• Please oppose any owner occupied housing maintenance code. We all live differently and have
different standards, maintenance codes DO NOT promote diversity and inclusion and the poor
are often targets of codes like this. The last thing the City of Ames needs to do is police
homeowners, passing any part of an owner occupied maintenance code will open the door to
expanding this power in the future. Please vote no.
• agree
• How many of these exist in our backyards? I’d like to see the study. This seems like another
random reason to act like homeowners need a babysitter down at city hall
• No children are on these sights anyways
• Why on earth is that the government's business? It's not.
• Again if in my backyard not city's business
• I support front yard only. Leave back yards alone.
• Enforce existing codes on landlords
• Enforce existing codes on large landlord companies
• Why else would there be a hole in the ground beyond active projects? People move slowly.
Every current homeowner should be grandfathered in if you do this, as they purchased their
homes knowing their capabilities and speed.
• Seems unnecessary
• do something that matters instead
• fair
• An excavation that wasn’t part of a construction project??
• Is this really a common problem?
• This is harmful to the low income and punitive.
• What is the justificiation for this? Is this really a problem? Did someone fall in a hole?
• Please provide scientific research showing that this is detrimental to the health and safety of the
community.
• This sounds reasonable for front yards but not backyards. The problem here would be random
kids coming into other people's yards.
• Sure, seems safe.
• I'm in favor of this
• This should certainly happen. Actually surprised it’s not in the existing code somewhere.
• 30 days is too long.
• Seems reasonable.
• Agree
• Define “active construction project” and then let’s talk
• Unnecessary.
• Window wells are much more prevalent and there is no rule against those.
• I oppose this. Really? Are people calling this in as a complaint?
• This is private property. What part of that don’t you understand? People have the right to do
with their property what they see fit. Most people are not going to leave giant holes in their
property for extended periods of time without a pretty good reason. Did you ever consider that
there may be things that you don’t know causing these situations to occur? Give people some
grace and stop thinking that you get to control everything that happens in this town.
• Does this include landlords being responsible for it?
• No comment
• Good idea.
• I think this just needs to be clarified that once full, garden ponds are no longer "open."
• Vote yes.
• Depends on the accessibility of the hole to the public
• So any egress window in town will need to be covered? It's a hole in the ground that deeper
than 3 feet and is uncovered. Hmmm. Seems like that may be an issue.
• makes sense.
• I can see this for public land spaces because of safety hazards but why private property?
• Reasonable
• Seems redundant.
• Agree
• Support
• n/a
• Good
• Good idea
• Valid point. See show Parks & Rec
• I got to see who’s diggin holes!
• But I want Nana to be well-acquainted with her final resting place.
• Reasonable but is this really necessary?
• Just require they be marked and secured.
• Why? That is, why the need to prohibit such activity on private property?
• no
• If someone has the area fenced off, that should be good enough.
• What about decorative ponds and fire pits? If it is a leg breaker yes it should be covered.
• Seems reasonable
• Seems reasonable.
• What? One that makes sense and isn’t just a way to bill people?!?!
• I support
• Arbitrary.
• Does this cover ponds or fire pits, both of which are excavations?
• I agree with this proposal.
• Ok
• Lotion anyone?
• If this is a safety issue then you should also enforce egress window enclosure.
• yes
• Why is this one thirty days but other are 48 hours?
The proposed ordinance would require vacant structures to be secured with locks and intact windows
and doors. Comments?
• good idea except in active construction
• Reasonable
• please approve
• Yes, absolutely.
• Yes, add Vacant Building Permit with inspections every 3 months to not allow dilapidation.
• Absolutely
• This is America. A property owner can make this decision for themselves.
• No comment
• Great idea.
• Would a garage count as vacant or a shet that stores things be vacant as a person doesn't live
there but its not vacant from out things
• This has potential
• No
• It is not your business if I choose to leave my property locked or not
• How do we help those that may need help to provide this?
• No
• Good idea
• This is overreach. This does not pose a hazard to anyone else.
• Fair
• Is this to keep homeless people from finding shelter when it gets too cold? Not ok with this one.
They are people and should be treated as such. Work on the economy and homeless programs
before you make it so that they are forced to free to death on the street. Heartless.
• You have more than enough to do, stop worrying about this crap
• ok
• Please oppose any owner occupied housing maintenance code. We all live differently and have
different standards, maintenance codes DO NOT promote diversity and inclusion and the poor
are often targets of codes like this. The last thing the City of Ames needs to do is police
homeowners, passing any part of an owner occupied maintenance code will open the door to
expanding this power in the future. Please vote no.
• Would a window made of plywood be acceptable if it helps to secure the property?
• agree
• Again, not seeing many of these.
• No
• No. This isn't the government's business at all and this should not be a rule.
• better idea: turn vacant structures into affordable housing and solve homelessness.
• I support this
• Enforce existing codes on landlords
• Enforce existing codes on large landlord companies
• Who do you ticket when it's vacant?
• What does this even mean? Seems unnecessary
• no, not the city's business and how is an open shed door different than a non enclosed porch?
• is this a real issue?
• make sense
• Hmmm. Has the city looked at the effects of broken window ordinances in other towns? They
haven’t worked well.
• At long last, something not completely idiotic.
• So like sheds? garages? My neighbor's garage window is broken and has been. Garage door is
also open all the time. Would he have to secure this? Why? He doesn't have the money to fix it.
• This is harmful to the low income and punitive.
• Yes.
• What is the justificiation for this? I don't see one.
• Please provide scientific research showing that this is detrimental to the health and safety of the
community.
• This sounds reasonable.
• I'm in favor of this
• Sure.
• Seems reasonable.
• Agree if a structure has those items in operation when functioning
• Why does the city care about this?
• This is not the city’s business
• Strongly oppose. The owener has the ability to make this decision themselves.
• Why? What is a vacant structure? Garage?
• I oppose this. See no reason for it.
• I would like to see “vacant structures” defined. I am sure that this is to prevent so called vacant
structures from being used by teenagers, the homeless, criminals etc. And it seems like a pretty
good idea. However, I can imagine that there are property owners who have tried to keep up
with this situation, and have their locks, windows, and doors repeatedly broken. I would image
that the expense/time commitment to keep up with this is considerable. This is probably the
least offensive item on your list, and I am still not sure I can get behind it.
• Vacant places need to be rehabbed to be rented or sold.
• No comment
• Vote yes.
• neither agree or disagree
• I'm actually ok with this to a degree. Vacant structures can be broken into, so some
accommodation would need to be made if they were secured and then need resecured. Define
vacant structure? Is that my shed?
• good.
• Provide housing for the homeless then. Insee the value in this but you’re really still saying
poverty is a crime.
• Reasonable
• This is the 1st one that makes any sense
• Would an open gazebo type structure fall into this definition?
• Define vacant?
• Agree.
• Support
• n/a
• Good
• Yes
• Ok
• Spoken like a stereotypical city-dweller. Aren’t Midwesterners supposed to trust their
neighbors?
• This is ridiculous and unnecessary.
• No. That's anti-houseless and requires extra work on the part of the homeowner. If
homeowners don't want "squatters" they can lock their buildings themselves.
• My garden shed is vacant. Why should I have to install a lock?
• no
• Why is this the city's concern?
• This should apply to houses. Gets a little grey when you think about garden sheds and open
garages.
• Does this include construction sites?
• Seems reasonable
• So sheds have to have locks?
• If the property is vacant, who would pay the fines or insure that this ordinance is being
followed?
• So playhouses need locks?
• Just.. let people have whatever on their property. It's theirs. Quit intervening
• I support
• Vacant structures... would that include sheds? You're requiring locks on sheds?
• I agree, for the most part. Houses should definitely be included in this. How invasive to you
intend to make this? Are garages and garden sheds excluded or included?
• Appreciate the safety focus to lower concerns with squatting and drugs
• Seems like you really have it out for poor people, but hopefully there aren't too many buildings
like this in town
• Agreed.
• ok
• yes
• ok
The proposed ordinance would require the exterior of structures to be maintained and free of holes.
Comments?
• good idea
• "Maintained" needs to be defined
• please approve, but again what if people do not have the money for repairs
• Yes, make our properties look nice!
• Agreed
• Absolutely
• No thanks, I don’t live in a HOA neighborhood for a reason :)
• No need for a city mandate
• Great idea.
• These are brand-new violations and will wrongly target low income families. It’s going to
disproportionately affect our neighbors who are already trying to make ends meet. Why not
offer grants and incentives instead of of fining people and billing them for things they didn’t
want or couldn’t afford? Please think this through.
• Yes good my one neighbors have multiple windows missing
• Has ames turned Into a city HOA?
• Maintained is very subjective
• This is more alike to a home owners association than a city law. What purpose does this serve
other than making things "look good"? Further is a quarter sized hole in violation? Baseball sized
hole? This rule should be removed.
• None
• What does maintained mean? How does fining people without money make sense?
• I feel like i am repeating myself, how do we help those without the financial means? This feels
like it is targeting the already marginalized.
• Provide assistance to owners in repairing damaged structures. This is punitive toward low-
income people.
• vague, discriminatory, ridiculous.
• Again... disproportionately harmful to low income residents
• Free of holes? Are we supposed to go and check for holes? What happens if someone shoots an
arrow through our siding but doesn’t cause structural damage?? This actually happened to us
and there is a small hole in the exterior.
• You have more than enough to do, stop worrying about this crap
• is there an exception for storm damage? People are still waiting to get their homes repaired
after the derecho and that would be unfair to them
• THIS WILL UNDULY PENALIZE POOR PEOPLE. Stop trying to police everyone in Ames!
• Please oppose any owner occupied housing maintenance code. We all live differently and have
different standards, maintenance codes DO NOT promote diversity and inclusion and the poor
are often targets of codes like this. The last thing the City of Ames needs to do is police
homeowners, passing any part of an owner occupied maintenance code will open the door to
expanding this power in the future. Please vote no.
• Jeeesh. And what diameter would be unacceptable?
• agree
• Good grief. The woodpeckers are constant. I can’t hire a handyman monthly
• No
• 100% government overreach
• This again seems to target low income homeowners who struggle to afford maintenance and
repairs. Assistance seems more community-minded than punishing people with fines.
• Again, if the home is insured, its not your business.
• Seems too vague open to interpretation. I don't think it is the city's business to enforce this.
• I support this
• Enforce existing codes on landlords
• Enforce existing codes on large landlord companies
• How does a hole in the wall of someone's home hurt the city or anyone else?
• Is this to protect property values? If someone owns their home and wants to have a hole in it,
let them? What harm is it doing to anyone else? Seems like a way to force poorer people out -
seems like discrimination.
• how do you have time for this?
• fine
• “Maintained?!” This one should just be tossed.
• Attic vents considered harmful?
• What harm does this cause the public? Seems to disproportionaly punish low income people.
And when the city abates things it isn't a reasonable amount and is also in excess as
punishment. If the goal was just to get things in workng order, sidewalks cleared, etc. the fine
would be in line with what it actually costs, not in excess as punishment.
• This is harmful to the low income and punitive.
• Yes, however those without the means or ability to maintain their home should be offered
assistance from the city/community.
• What is the justificiation for this? I don't see one.
• Please provide scientific research showing that this is detrimental to the health and safety of the
community.
• Does that mean I could have the city enforce this with my property manager? My house is over
100 years old and right now, sealing holes in the house doesn't seem like something they care
about. If this falls to renters, then the city is favoring the rich. Poor people might have etriubke
affording to do this. If the landlord has let holes develop, they should be the ones to fix it.
• How big of a hole, I have a storage shed, and the derecho cause some of the sheetmetal
between roof and side to bow up allowing maybe 2" gaps in some parts.
• I'm in favor of this
• I agree including no peeling paint
• This is the most clear example of classism in the proposal.
• Seems reasonable. May be hard to enforce.
• Only for holes that create a dangerous environment
• This is not the city’s business
• Unnecessary. One can assume that the condition of the exterior will be maintained to the best
of the owner's ability. The proposed code is a regressive measure which is insensitive to an
owner's economic status and can only create stress and conflict.
• What does "be maintained" mean?
• I oppose this. None of your business if I want a hole in my house.
• Add hardship considerations to the proposed ordinance.
• Define maintained. Who is the authority on maintained? Again, this appears to be picking on the
poor, elderly and disabled. Not a good look, City of Ames. Would it be nice if every home and
building in this city had a fresh coat of paint, perfect siding, and immaculate roofs? Sure. Is that
realistic? No. Again, we purchased a distressed property in 2007. We were young and just
getting started. We didn’t have a lot of money, but we did have energy, and because we didn’t
have ridiculous demands being made on us by the city, over the past 14 years we have
addressed many of the issues that this list is attempting to attack. We did not take care of them
overnight, but over the course of many years, we have gradually brought our once dilapidated
property into a state of compliance with most if not all of these “ordinance proposals”. We had
to put some things on hold at times due to health issues/lack of funds. Over time, we made
what was once an eyesore, an attractive property. And our tax burden has certainly reflected
this.
• Does this mean landlords have to take care of their properties?
• No comment
• Vote yes.
• This is hugely discriminatory against lower-income families who may not have the money to fix
cosmetic siding/exterior issues on their homes. Absolutely do not support this.
• depending on further clarification, I agree.
• Nope, define maintained? Free of holes? I still see tarps on roofs (especially garages or sheds)
left over from the derecho. Try getting a roofer for a small project and paying for it.
• Do you plan on exterminating woodpeckers?
• You are expecting us all to live in a gated community of old white people who have the time and
interest in tattling on their neighbors. All of these policies are threats to hard working middle
and lower class individuals. If I wanted this I could live in a gated retirement community. This is
basically punishing poor people for being poor: its discrimination.
• This would not address the problem from the correct angle. If a homeowner cannot afford
upkeep, fines and citations will not improve the situation. Unless part of a larger plan to support
those affected by this ordinance, the fines will simply pile up until the city takes possession of
the house.
• NO
• Again, definitions. The city should not be one giant HOA.
• The size of a hole should matter and be defined
• Seems unfair to fine someone who already can't afford to keep up their home.
• Please also provide support for people to take care of this who may need assistance. Also make
sure this isn't too vague.
• I don’t agree with this because when the derecho happened it showed me how easily things
break and how expensive they are to fix. And how it takes time.
• Agree.
• Support
• How would the city propose to assist after a disaster like the derecho, where even rental-
owners are failing to comply with building maintanence.
• n/a
• Good
• Yes - but what does "maintained" mean exactly
• Again as a first step in addressing these concerns you could have nonprofits work with owners
to fix issues that they are otherwise physically or financially unable to address.
• We cannot police the siding and roofs of homes. These are very expensive items to repair and
replace. People have differing opinions on when it is time to address these items and last time I
checked, this was America.
• Well if my neighbor would stop mowing his grass so low then rocks wouldn’t get thrown into my
siding!
• Kind of ruins my plan for my structure to also serve as a backdrop for when I shoot target
practice.
• Mind your business!
• Only if it's a safety hazard. Aesthetics should not be mandated.
• Having a hard time funding expensive repairs? Here's a fine!
• "Maintained" is far too subjective. Again, ordinances need to be measurable not left up to the
whim of whoever is interpreting them.
• no
• Maintained how??? You have a little peeling paint and can afford to paint your whole house, so
what, the city charges you??? How is that helping anyone??? We have a woodpecker in our
neighborhood. Are you going to charge us for every hole that he makes that we don't get filled
within a certain amount of time???
• Help should be available for those that can not fix the issues on their own.
• Even in fenced off areas? What if the land is uneven? Aren’t small dips in the yard natural?
• What is the remediation if this happens? If someone can’t afford to maintain their home do you
just claim it and make them homeless? This seems like a half solution.
• As long as temporary repairs are allowed while scheduling or planning larger renovations. For
example: Temporary roof patch while lining up and scheduling a new roof to be completed in
the next year.
• This going to be used to screw poor people? You paying people to fix this?
• What is a hole? HVAC? What about insured perils that require an inspection by the insurance
agency?
• Responsibility of the property owner not the city.
• Again. Some people cant afford stuff at the time. LET PEOPLE BE.
• I oppose
• Overreach.
• Vague - what does "maintained mean?
• What does maintained mean? Our paint has been chipping despite paying a lot of money to get
it painted. Twice.
• You need to define to what "maintained" means. Leaving it like this makes it highly subjective
and open to abuse.
• Promotes safety for dependent adults and children from a Mandatory Reporter standpoint
• Again, sounds like you have it out for poor people
• Define what you mean by "maintained"
• Niooce
• I’ll only agree to this if you more clearly define “maintained”
• Does this include paint? A lot of older homes need paint.
• yes
• how big of a hole are we talking about? If there's a small hole in my garage is that going to
count? If there's an open window, is that hole?
The proposed ordinance would prohibit graffiti on all properties. Comments?
• good idea
• Just so long as my child's drawing on the driveway is not described as graffiti, which I have seen
done!
• Mural or graffiti?
• please approve
• Narrow line between graffiti and art. Must define where that line is. Also, who is going to tell the
UP that their property isn't allowed in town now?
• Agreed
• What about those that are painted by an artist?
• No thanks, I don’t live in a HOA neighborhood for a reason :)
• What’s the difference between graffiti and art?
• Great idea.
• So this does not include the wonderful murals around town correct
• Are there any approved graffitti art on buildings in downtown or campustown
• What if graffiti is actually art?
• No
• It is not the city’s job to determine what is considered art.
• Graffiti or art, who decides?
• No
• Need to expand the time to fix issue. At least one week.
• This is overreach. Graffiti is not hazardous to others.
• This is a terrible idea. Most graffiti is caused by people who are not the property owner and
should not be the responsibility of the owner. Also there are people who consider certain forms
of graffiti to be art and enjoy having it. This is a policy that is very harmful to communities of
color and low income residents
• Why? Ames is crap town, this won’t make it better. Who are you to decide what is art and what
isn’t? Or will you just be getting rid of any pro-minority art while leaving the white supremicists
stuff
• You have more than enough to do, stop worrying about this crap
• Why? What if I want my house to be like a beautiful graffiti mural?
• This will further penalize homeowners who may not be able to afford to repair graffit in your
preffered timeline. Also, who deems it as "graffiti?" This opens the door to litigation about
what is art if someone has graffiti art on their proprty and is not the victim of a tagging. Also,
key word here, VICTIM: Does the city really want to add fines on the backs of tagging victims?
Come on
• graffiti can be art. or a legit statement. should we ban yard signs?
• Please oppose any owner occupied housing maintenance code. We all live differently and have
different standards, maintenance codes DO NOT promote diversity and inclusion and the poor
are often targets of codes like this. The last thing the City of Ames needs to do is police
homeowners, passing any part of an owner occupied maintenance code will open the door to
expanding this power in the future. Please vote no.
• Perhaps the person creating the graffiti would be kind enough to remove it.. .
• What if someone paints graffiti on your house and you wake up to a police officer giving you a
fine for having graffiti. It doesn't seem fair. Removing it could be a major expense.
• agree
• Some art is viewed as graffiti
• I’ve rarely seen graffiti in town
• Why should I not be allowed to paint whatever I want on my property? Government overreach,
classist and racist.
• Overreaching. Why are we trying to turn the whole city into a big HOA?
• Graffiti is art and beautifies our neighborhoods, bringing otherwise drab walls to life. The
Reliable Street community offers up their building for graffiti artists to use and I would
encourage council members to visit and view the art there and tell me if they find it an eyesore
and a nuisance or an expression of an individual and their art.
• Again, private home is a private home...
• Do city parks, shelters and picnic tables count....worry about those
• I presume this means that the graffiti artist will be held to charged for the offense. Consider
rewording
• I support this
• Enforce existing codes on landlords
• Enforce existing codes on large landlord companies
• What you see as graffiti, I see as art. How about the Burger King sign on Lincoln Way... now
that's an eyesore and far worse than any graffiti I've ever seen.
• Seems unnecessary.
• No it is punishing the owner for vandalism. What about homeowner approved art that is graffiti
inspired.
• this is just petty
• this si dumb if people want to art their house you shouldnt have a say. So this ones stupid.
• On private property? Why?
• If someone defaces your property, *you* are the criminal? Back to the moronic ideas, I see.
• Does Ames really have a graffiti problem?
• This is harmful to the low income and punitive.
• Goodbye art. My property, I should get to decide what gets put on it.
• Unnecessary. I’ve never seen “graffiti” on anyone’s home or property.
• What is the justificiation for this? Who decides what is art and what is graffiti? Do we really have
a vandalism problem? And if someone has their house vandalized I would think they would want
to clean it - so penalzing them for not doing it fast enough when they are alrady dealing with
damage to their home is just insult on top of injury.
• Please provide scientific research showing that this is detrimental to the health and safety of the
community.
• This sounds reasonable if we define graffiti.
• This should not be codified. Homeowners who are the victims of graffiti should not be put in a
situation where they could be fined by the city. This could also be an unfortunate limitation of
artistic expression if art was interpreted as graffiti.
• Seems like a first amendment issue.
• Define graffiti.
• Define graffiti. Many commercial structures have murals, does this count? What right does the
city have to remove non offensive art that the property owner chooses to display?
• Am I not allowed to graffiti my own home? This seems silly
• How is graffiti defined and distinguished from exterior art? This seems subjective, and could be
used in discriminatory ways.
• Graffiti can be art.
• Maybe the city should instead put together a board to help homeowners to remove unwanted
graffiti.
• Graffiti is considered art to some people
• Seems reasonable.
• Disagree on no definition as some is commissioned art
• This is not the city’s business and definitely feels racist
• Strongly oppose. Graffiti is a valuable form of expression. Owners
• Define graffiti. Graffiti could also be viewed as artistic expression.
• This is pointless. No one wants graffiti and works towards removing it if they ahve it. Why
punish them if it takes more than 48 hours. It took the city way more than 48 hours to remove
graffiti on city property.
• I oppose this. What is graffiti and what is art? Not your place to dictate.
• Who decides when graffiti is urban art and adds to our community?
• Slippery slope - someone's art on their own property could be considered graffiti. Overreach.
• The 48 hour deadline for removal is too short. Provide city assistance at a reasonable cost. Add
a hardship consideration.
• Define graffiti. One man’s graffiti is another man’s art. Most people probably don’t want graffiti
on their property. They probably don’t want to have to take their precious time and limited
funds to clean up what people who don’t respect private property do to it. I wonder how much
graffiti and crimes against private property will increase as the city and school district
“reimagine” policing.
• What's the difference between a mural and graffitti?
• Graffiti needs a clear and proper definition. One persons interpretation of Graffiti can be seen as
art by another person. There is a mural in downtown Ames that I think is poorly done, is this
Graffiti? I find it ugly and in poor taste but others may enjoy the work. If someone were to spray
paint my property why does the city get to deem it graffiti from art. It seems like a violation of
ones free speech. I have concerns that this purpose could and will be abused by the city of
Ames.
• No comment
• I also think this needs to be clarified. What constitutes graffiti? If I pay someone to make a mural
on a wall is that graffiti or art? I believe that downtown Ames actually has some beautiful murals
and would hate to see them painted over. If I sign my own name onto my own house in spray
paint for whatever reason, is that graffiti or just an idiosyncratic paint job? Also why is the
window so short? If someone draws on my house on a Monday and I work a full time job, why
do I have to strain myself to clean it by Wednesday even though I didn’t do it in the first place.
The short time window seems like you are penalizing the victim.
• Vote yes.
• Who gets to decide what's considered graffiti versus art, and are you then prepared to deal with
free speech lawsuits for claiming that a resident doesn't have the right to have words/images
painted on their own property?
• Define graffiti? Art vs Graffiti. Is a political mural on a wall art or graffiti?
• Not all graffiti is bad.
• This is limiting freedom of expression. Graffiti is an art form.
• Reasonable
• NO
• Graffiti can be art! Who will make that judgement?
• Graffiti could be loosely interpreted and is not defined
• What of the owner painted it in artistic expression? What if they can't afford to remove it from
vandalism?
• Some people consider graffiti an art form
• Agree.
• Support
• If it's on a building that is owned by the occupant, they already have the ability to remove it.
What aspect "[leaves] staff with no enforcement ability" to correct what they find displeasing?
In Boone, there is a giant mural of Trump I find displeasing, under a similar proposal, I could
report it as graffiti, as the definite of the word is vague
• n/a
• Hmmm some graffiti is legitimate art. This would need to be well defined.
• Is this really a problem in Ames?
• Yes
• Gfy
• I was unaware Ames hated artistic expression.
• Strongly disagree.
• Resources!!
• Is this because of Scott Randall? There must be another way to deal with his eyesore on Lincoln
Way. How would you define what is graffiti on someone’s private property? What if I have art
that I put on my own fence? That is not the city’s business.
• No. Graffiti can be art and free speech.
• .Unreasonable. Too narrow of a distinction between graffiti and art. This also doesn’t address
the crime of vandalism or the residents’ responsibilities
• How does the city define graffiti vs art vs murals? This would be my big concern is the
definitions.
• Victim of a crime and can't afford the repair immediately? Here's a fine!
• Again, Ames is not an HOA. What distinguishes "graffiti" from "mural" other than the whim of
the interpreter?
• no
• Sure, if someone else is putting graffiti on someone's property, that is vandalism. If a
homeowner wants to paint a picture on their garage door, they should be allowed to.
• We need more art around town. Who defines graffiti versus art?
• What constitutes graffiti? Where is the line between graffiti and art?
• What is graffiti? What is art? This is absurd.
• Acceptable as long as owner considers it graffiti.
• Define graffiti in a manner that isn’t showing your racism in this policy.
• Graffiti to one may be art to another, who’s to deem which is which?
• Define Graffiti vs. Mural. Ridiculous
• Responsibility of the property owner, not the city
• Art is art. And its a private property so you shouldn't get ANY say if you dont own it.
• I oppose
• Nobody wants graffiti on their property, but forcing property owners to remove it is overreach.
• So if someone wants a mural on their shed, they couldn’t do it? This is dumb.
• Really????
• Whatif you give permission for the tagging and artwork? Is it still graffiti?
• Does this prevent a homeowner from painting a mural on their fence? Who decides what is
grafitti?
• Nope. I do not agree with how this is written. If I want to commission a mural by a skilled graffiti
artist, I would be prohibited. I can understand prohibiting uninvited art/modification of any
style. As written, this is both classist and racist. You've defined a style of art as illegal. You might
want to word this better or else get rid of it.
• Definition of graffiti? How is it different from art someone may have put up on their property?
• I thought I saw 48 hours as a requirement and feel more time should be given to remove graffiti
as the owner likely has nothing to do with the application. It can take time to determine how to
remove graffiti or how to do it properly
• If it is their property, why does it matter? Sounds more like an HOA rule to me. I can't imagine
there are too many properties in town like this, besides reliable street.
• Who gets to define graffiti versus art? This seems highly subjective.
• Does this include my personal residence?
• "Graffiti" needs further definition, otherwise this seems to be inviting complaints based on
aesthetic and cultural difference. Assumming this is meant to refer to acts of vandalism on a
property, are homeowners going to be punished if someone vandalises their property? This
seems to open that door.
• What about murals?
• There is a fine line between graffiti and wall art, you must define this more clearly.
• Agree
• What if the owner likes the graffiti? Some people do.
• What is graffiti? If the owner didn't place it there, how long do they have to remove it? Why are
we shifting the burden for what might be a malicious act?
The current City Code prohibits junk vehicles from remaining on a property for more than 72 hours.
The proposed ordinance would change the time frame to 48 hours. Comments?
• good idea
• NO
• Does this make a difference?
• 72 is fine, it can take time to get rid of it.
• Has the 72 hour time been enforced? Is this a time sensitive issue or an enforcement issue?
• Agreed, have a good definition of Junk Vehicle, not street legal. However, allow them if inside a
building.
• Define "junk"
• No thanks, I don’t live in a HOA neighborhood for a reason :)
• I’ve done this. Sometimes takes a while to find someone to buy a vehicle. The city should leave
this alone
• Great idea.
• These are brand-new violations and will wrongly target low income families. It’s going to
disproportionately affect our neighbors who are already trying to make ends meet. Why not
offer grants and incentives instead of of fining people and billing them for things they didn’t
want or couldn’t afford? Please think this through.
• Nope... My junk car may be my primary mode of transportation
• Definitions of junk vehicles vary. What if the item is a repair in progress that the homeowner's
are actively working on to the best of their ability? Or a project restoration car? This is, again, a
rule for a home owners association, not a city law.
• It takes more than 2 days to try to find something to do with “junked” cars. And who cares if it’s
in my own driveway, it’s not hurting one person.
• Why make it more strict?
• What is an extra day? When’s can be hard to get help. Keep it at 72 hours.
• Yes
• No need for change
• There is not a good way to define "junk vehicle". This is terribly unenforceable and could impact
low income residents in a negative way when their vehicles stops working.
• How will you define junk vehicles?? I know people that work on cars and a junk vehicle may just
be a project to them
• You have more than enough to do, stop worrying about this crap
• It seems like none of the cities business to me
• Keep it at 72 - sometimes people have a hard time taking care of things. This will add fines to
people who can't afford it.
• Current City Code is fine.
• Please oppose any owner occupied housing maintenance code. We all live differently and have
different standards, maintenance codes DO NOT promote diversity and inclusion and the poor
are often targets of codes like this. The last thing the City of Ames needs to do is police
homeowners, passing any part of an owner occupied maintenance code will open the door to
expanding this power in the future. Please vote no.
• What difference will 24 hours make?
• I think people should be able to keep items that are not dangerous or vermin-infested wherever
they want on their property.
• agree
• My dad called these project cars
• You're not enforcing the 72 hours now.
• How do you know it’s junk? I’ve been home during the pandemic and my car is old. Would I get
fined? lol
• Absolutely not. This is government overreach. There are many reasons why a business or family
may not be able to get a vehicle repaired or moved in such a tight timeframe. Do not change the
code.
• Why? What makes 2 days better than 3?
• 72 hours seems quite reasonable
• Define junk and again my vehicle and property my business
• Define the term "junk vehicle". A vehicle awaiting repair should not be considered as junk.
• Enforce existing codes on landlords
• Enforce existing codes on large landlord companies
• Yes, the 24 hours is all the difference. This makes perfect sense to be focusing on.
• Seems unnecessary. What difference does 24 hours make? There are houses that have had junk
vehicles with flat tires sitting in their driveways for years... the current ordinance isn't stopping
that.
• No especially vehicles not visible to the public. Also what is junk? Non-running, unlicensed,
builder title or just a vehicle someone has decided looks junky?
• we could be doing something important
• eh
• You can't always get something moved that quickly, especially if you don't have the money in
hand.
• Wow, citizens can rest easy knowing that critical extra 24 hours has been dealt with!!!
• Really?????
• This is harmful to the low income and punitive. What about low income people with no garage
to work on their car and no money to go to a mechanic?
• Yeah I’ve had people use this to punish me for fixing my only car I rely on for work.
• Yes.
• What is the justificiation for this?
• Please provide scientific research showing that this is detrimental to the health and safety of the
community.
• What different does removing 24 hours make? It's already a code for 3 days. Is this really that if
of a problem?
• Define junk vehicles.
• What’s a junk vehicle?
• I think 72 is just fine. What does the extra 24 do other than make someone perhaps pay a
weekend rate on towing?
• What does junk vehicle mean???
• This seems pointless. Low-income people may need time to arrange from removal of a vehicle,
and may not be able to do so over a weekend. It should remain at 72 hours.
• And if a persons car breaks down and they don’t have the resources to get it fixed or towed?
How will the city removing it and charging the person help them? How is that making Ames a
better community for all people to live in?
• Yes! Thank you.
• I would increase time as on the property the vehicle could just be waiting for repairs
• This is not the city’s business
• Oh get real. There are junk vehicle sitting in the same spots since we moved here in 2010.
• The definition of junk vehicle is subjective. Some owners may be working on the vehicle or be
planning to at some point. Unnecessary and invasive.
• Why? This is poinltess and I oppose it.
• I oppose this. Shortening it by 24 hours. To what end?
• No, Arranging to get rid of a junk vehicle takes time
• Does one day less merit an ordinance change?
• Define junk vehicles. Who is the authority on junk vehicles? Again, this seems like a blatant
attack on the poor and elderly. Many people are struggling financially. They may be saving
money to repair a car. They may not have the money to have that car towed away. Right now,
repair shops are booked at least a week and sometimes more out. This just smacks of elitism.
Additionally, many people in this community enjoy taking old cars and fixing them up in their
spare time. This obviously takes time. And for a while, these vehicles may look like “junk”. And
that’s ok! Let’s go over this again. It is private property. What people do with their property is
their business. You don’t have to like it. But you don’t get to restrict it.
• A property on Wilson owned by Triplette has had a junked car left by evicted tenants in the
driveway for one of the apartments for over a decade now and refuses to move it. They claim
they don't have the authority to tow it.
• No comment
• Dr. Tammy, Companion Animal Clinic (Gilbert IA)
• Vote yes.
• Yall ever heard of a weekend? 72 hous is fine.
• Who determines what's considered a "junk" vehicle versus an acceptable one? Again, this is
hugely discriminatory against low-income families who may not have the immediate funds for
car repairs.
• disagree
• If you own a property, you should be able to store it as long as you want
• Nope, no reason to change this. 72 hours allows someone to make the decision to fix up an old
car or junk it. In our case, it was wrecked, but driveable and we needed everybit of the 72 hours
to decide whether to fix or drive to Carney's
• My neighbor on Furman drive has had an unregistered motor home on her property for more
than 8 years. I would support this ordinance
• Why?
• You are expecting us all to live in a gated community of old white people who have the time and
interest in tattling on their neighbors. All of these policies are threats to hard working middle
and lower class individuals. If I wanted this I could live in a gated retirement community. This is
basically punishing poor people for being poor: its discrimination.
• Reasonable
• NO, 72 hours is fine
• NO! No need to shorten the code by 24 hours.
• I absolutely support this. I live next to a property where there are at a minimum for vehicles
parked in the driveway and any space they can find. They don’t move the vehicles there clearly
junk vehicles. It is an eyesore and they accumulate debris and junk and garbage in between the
cars. At this time it seems the city cannot do anything about it because they park purposefully
on their driveway and adjacent lawn area.I am hopeful this ordinance could help with this
problem. At times they have more than four vehicles parked in their yard/driveway.
• What is a "junk vehicle"? Is the vehicle that doesn't run by is slowly being worked on "junk"?
• AMES
• I don’t think I agree with this. People need a few days to deal with stuff like this.
• Keep it the way it is. 72 hours isn’t much compared to them sitting there for a year!
• Support
• The city obviously has no need for home car maintanence, and the council has no experience
with the time it takes to fix a broken vehicle part
• n/a
• Seems like a small unnecessary change. 72 hours gives people more time to gather resources to
move the vehicle. Some people have very limited resources. It seems punishing to change the
time limit if you don’t have the resources to move a junk vehicle immediately. What about
someone that is fixing up a “junk” vehicle?
• This does not seem like a reasonable amount of time, keeping it a 72 hours seems more
appropriate.
• 72 seems reasonable
• This is out of line. If you own a property, you should be able to use that property to store your
things. Again, can be handled by the HOA in some neighborhoods.
• Discrimination
• It’s not junk, it’s a project car.
• Strongly disagree.
• 2 days is NOT enough time. Again, towing and finding a storage place to potentially someone's
only car is difficult!
• If a junk vehicle is on private property, it should not be the City’s business.
• This is unnecessarily restrictive.
• how is junk vehicle defined? I can understand that folks fixing up a car or with limited funds
may have difficulty with this.
• Is 24 hours thing to make a big difference?
• What is the benefit to changing the time frame? 72 hours gives from Friday to Monday for
disposal. 48 hours may force someone to find a way to dispose of on a Sunday.
• According to your code, if I remove a dead battery from my vehicle to take to the store for a
replacement, that makes my car a "junk vehicle". You want to be able to tow my vehicle if I
don't get this done within 48 hours? I am opposed to this. I think the time period should be of
the order of weeks, at least, or better months.
• Why? What is the point? Let folks have the third day to figure out what they are going to do.
• Who defines a junk vehicle versus a project? I could see maybe 3-6 months to complete it or sell
it.
• If someone can’t move it in 72 hours won’t limiting the time frame further only exacerbate the
issue and further criminalize poverty?
• Does a day really matter?
• Does it need to be shortened? I assume a vehicle could become junk by being involved in an
accident, it may require longer for the owner to determine what to do with the junk vehicle.
After the owner has been notified by the city, not to store the junked vehicle on their property,
how long would the owner have to remove the junked vehicle?
• Define junk vehicles. Classist much? Some folks trying to fix their vehicle that can’t afford to do
so until a paycheck or two from when the car dies are now getting a poor tax. Nice of you.
• How do you determine whether it is a "junk" vehicle?
• Stop. Policing. Private. Peoples. Property.
• I oppose
• Does this solve anything?
• So people can’t work on their own cars?
• Oh for heaven sakes. Give people a little time.
• Why shorten the time?
• I understand the reasoning behind this one, but it seems like it might also serve as a punishment
for people who don't have the funds to tow or repair a vehicle in an arbitrarily chosen time-
frame. Also, what isthe justification for reducing the time allowable by one day?
• No. Jesus, what difference does a day make? Also define junk vehicle vs a hobby restoration.
Maybe include a maximum number of junk/currently inoperable vehicles per property or per
person. Fine/keep deposit for renters who vacate without taking the vehicle with them if
property is a rental unit. (Keep in mind it's worth some money as scrap material and towing
costs.)
• This seems needless and wouldn't really change anything
• Give it a week. It can take money and time to best handle a dying vehicle situation.
• What difference does a day make? Sometimes it's impossible to get a vehicle towed in that time
frame. Give people time
• This could be problematic if the vehicle dies over a week-end or holiday. Anecdotaly, I had a car
die and I donated it to IPR, it stayed on my property for over a week until they could pick it up,
would this no longer be allowed?
• Limiting this by one additional day is unnecessary
• More time
• Seriously? You’re making a big deal about removing 24 hours?
• 72 hours is fine
• Are you just made aware of these by calls?
• Some people can not afford a tow, etc or enjoy working on cars. This infringes on their rights.
• Ames
• What difference does a day make?
• AMES
The current ordinance prohibits operable vehicles from remaining on a residential property for more
than 15 days without movement and on a commercial property for more than 1 year without
movement. Comments about this section of the City Code?
• good idea
• Does this make a difference?
• Not sure about this, what if it is a nextra car they do not use much or are gone for a long time
• Is there a proposal to change this? This seems fine, however, if someone travels for a month, or
is on sabbatical for a few months, why shouldn't they be able to leave their car in their driveway
for that time? If it's operable and isn't causing other issues, I don't see the issue with that.
• Disagree, 30 days in residential.
• There are residents that go south for the Winter. If it isn't on public property, isn't blocking a
sidewalk you should leave them alone if they are operable and in a driveway
• This one is especially bullshit. Where do those of us without driveways park when we’re on
military orders and have nobody to roll our cars a few feet forward?
• Great idea.
• These are brand-new violations and will wrongly target low income families. It’s going to
disproportionately affect our neighbors who are already trying to make ends meet. Why not
offer grants and incentives instead of of fining people and billing them for things they didn’t
want or couldn’t afford? Please think this through.
• Nope. My camper and boat are just fine where they are at.
• This is unnecessary. Are police going to check every person's vehicle parked by their home to
see if they have left in the last 15 days? Leave this to a home owners association.
• This is completely ridiculous. I work from home. Sometimes I don’t drive my cars for weeks. I’m
not going to get in and drive it around to make you people happy
• Just keep out of my property decisions
• It is residential property. Why do i need to move a vehicle that is on my property?
• Yes
• Don't agree with to this code.
• This is overreach.
• Absolutely ridiculous. We have a spare car that we keep in our driveway for those times when
our cars are in the shop. There is nothing wrong with that. This is ridiculous
• Many vehicle owners have more than one vehicle and generally only commute with one. This is
not enforceable nor does it make any sense. It also disproportionately impacts people of low
income who may not be able to afford a garage on their property
• We are still in a pandemic!!!! I rarely leave the house because I have an auto immune disease.
Now I’m supposed to go drive my car because you think I have been inside too long??? This
targets people who are disabled too who may have a period of time where movement is
difficult. Shame on you
• You have more than enough to do, stop worrying about this crap
• Why? If its on provate property then why is it the city's business if it hasn't been driven? Are you
going to fine me for the bike I have in my garage that I haven't ridden in a year?
• Current City Code is fine.
• What does this mean? This past year my car sat in my driveway for weeks on end without
moving due to working remotely and not leaving the house. If I go on vacation or a work trip
there could be a vehicle sitting in my driveway for multiple weeks and no one will be there to
move it around in the drive. You really need to be more specific on what exactly you mean for
some of these suggested rules.
• Ames is not bike friendly enough that I can get by without a car, but using it frequently should
not be required.
• Please oppose any owner occupied housing maintenance code. We all live differently and have
different standards, maintenance codes DO NOT promote diversity and inclusion and the poor
are often targets of codes like this. The last thing the City of Ames needs to do is police
homeowners, passing any part of an owner occupied maintenance code will open the door to
expanding this power in the future. Please vote no.
• This I find ridiculous. A car can't sit on a property? I hate this rule and I think it is government
overreach for the sake of government overreach. No one is bothered by a parked car.
• I can’t park my car in the driveway and leave town for a few weeks. This is stupid
• seems unenforceable
• We’re in a pandemic- I haven’t moved my car in months. Would I get fined?
• This is not the government's business to dictate this. You are ruining the city of Ames by trying
to bring this overreach to the city.
• I understand if it's in the street or a parking lot, but in someone's driveway? Isn't it enough that
junk cars aren't allowed?
• We're over a year into a pandemic which forced many people to reduce their travel and/or work
from home and many remain working from home. There have definitely been 15+ day stretches
where one of the cars at my home doesn't leave the driveway simply because it's not needed.
Many others I know have summer/winter vehicles and neighbors in my area do a lot of home
vehicle repair where a car might sit for a couple weeks awaiting a part. This seems pointless and
petty.
• My driveway my business if I park in same spot every day, go on vacation etc again my issue and
last I checked streets with no parking restrictions are public
• I don't think it is the city's business how long my car has been sitting on my drive way.
Ridiculous Rule.
• This is again too vague, and it seems like an overreach. People do actually go on long vacations
and leave a car in the driveway longer than 15 days.
• Operable or inoperable? So a family on a 3 week vacation has to have someone move their car?
This doesn't make sense.
• Enforce existing codes on landlords
• Enforce existing codes on large landlord companies
• Why does this matter? How do you know whether or not it was moved? If I go away for the
winter, I have to have someone move my car 5 feet forward, then put it in reverse for 5 feet
every 15 days. How is that helpful?
• Seems totally unnecessary. What is the point in this? If I want to stay home and not leave the
house for a month, do I really need to move my car from my driveway and put it back?
• ordinance should be removed. I usually drive one of my cars and no reason I should have to
move the other one every 15 days. In winter I would have to dig it out just to move it?
• but instead you want to turn the town
• is this someones house? if i dont want to move my damn car it shouldnt matter.
• This is dumb. We just had a pandemic where people didn't go out for weeks at a time. Are you
going to fine everyone who was working from home?
• Like, vehicles in a driveway? What about people who work from home? This is a silly ordinance.
These all seem like busybody ordinances made to penalize Ames residents with less cash flow.
• Why is how often a person drives their vehicles any damn business of the city?
• What if I break my leg and can't drive for 3 months? Do I still need to move my car from my
drieway and put it back every 15 days? That's ridiculous. It is private property, who cares how
often the car moves?
• This is harmful to the low income and punitive. Seriuosly what good does this do at all?????
None.
• My property, why can’t I store my vehicle on my property?
• What is the justificiation for this? Is this a real recommendation? Did this come straight from the
overbearing HOA manual?
• Please provide scientific research showing that this is detrimental to the health and safety of the
community.
• This is unreasonable. What if someone is poor and saving up to fix their vehicle? What if they
own the property? Shouldn't they be able to decide if their running vehicle is used or not? This
feels like overstepping. Why only 15 days? What if someone goes on vacation or is in the
hospital? Once again, this sounds like a code for something that isn't actually a problem.
Commerical properties should be similar in this case, or you will be favoring corporations over
people. Especially the poor or struggling.
• If it’s plated and insured why make me move it 12” every fortnight
• Why? If it is operable, this is unenforcable. At 3AM I went out and backed up a foot and pulled
forward a foot. How can you tell?
• This doesn't make sense. Many people have a car as backup that they don't use frequently. We
should encourage people to leave their cars at home and find other ways to get around. If the
car is operable, I see no problem with someone leaving it on their property.
• My industry has been shut down since March 12, 2020 due to Covid. This is crazy that if I had no
where to go over 15 days I would be forced to roll my tires forward on a 2 year old car to
possibly appease someone.
• Absolutely dumb. If somebody only has a driveway, and is within walking distance of most things
they need (grocery store, work, etc…), do they need to go in a drive every 15 days to no get a
warning or a ticket? What happens if they don’t? Is the car removed from the premise?
• Yes! I do not think property owners should be allowed to place a tarp over them.
• I would increase time on private to 30 days to allot for time away from home such as vacations
• Again who cares?
• This is not the city’s business
• So what about ones that aren't operable?
• Are you kidding? You can't be serious. I can't keep an operable vehicle on my own property for
15 days without using it? This is a joke? Are you intentionally trying to make people avoid
walking, biking, busing? I simply cannot believe this is real. Shame on you.
• This does not allow people to have project cars. I don’t support this.
• This is crazy.
• I oppose this. Really? Why? So absurd.
• This should not apply to classic cars under car covers during the winter time. My husband does
not drive his classic VW Bug in the snow but during other seasons can be a daily driver.
• This is ridiculous. People might go out of town for longer than 15 days. Some vehicles are
operable but not good in winter and might need to sit. Totally unneccesary.
• I think this existing ordinance is way too restrictive for residential property. If the vehicle is
properly parked on a concrete pad, I think the property owner should be allowed to park on
their own property for an indeterminate time.
• Wow. You really just want to control everything don’t you? Let’s review. Three years ago, my
son was in the hospital for 19 days. Should I have left the hospital to come home and move my
car? People go on vacation. Is a vacation of more than 15 days prohibited by the City of Ames
now? I thought this community was all about encouraging less cars on the road. I thought biking,
walking, taking the bus was encouraged. Covid resulted in many people working from home for
months on end, some for more than a year! Having their groceries delivered. Not leaving the
house. Is this for real? Please tell me this one is a joke.
• What if someone goes one a month long vacation? What if someone is on the hospital? Would
you fine and tow some old lady in the hospital?
• No comment
• Leave residential in place. Adjust commercial properties to 3 months.
• If I park my car in the drive way for more then 15 days at a time are you going to tow it? This is
dumb.
• disagree. If I leave my car in my driveway and leave for vacation for 2 weeks and it is gone when
I get back, I would have issues with this.
• Ridiculous, if you own it it is yours to do with as you please. Also, who keeps track?
• Once again, overreach. So if I park my car in my driveway and go away for a month for the
winter and leave the car in the driveway (only have a one car garage), I'm in violation?
Seriously, that's such a bad idea.
• This is silly. If you own the car and it’s not a junk vehicle and it doesn’t move for 15 days. Not the
city’s concern
• Spottily enforced.
• None
• So someone is supposed to come drive my vehicle while I am on vacation?
• So when my kid goes to college I have to keep moving his car??? NO.
• This is ridiculous.
• We often only drive only one of our cars, but the other is well-maintained and not an eyesore.
Why should I have to move it every 15 days if I don't want to take that car? What if I am out of
town for two weeks? Do I have to have someone come move it? That's just silly.
• AMES
• This is absolutely ridiculous! I have been on vacation for longer than fifteen days! Unacceptable!
• What if I’m on vacation for a month? I don’t agree. The commercial property amount of one
year seems fair.
• Support
• Why does this matter at all? If it's on personal property that is the owner's,
• n/a
• I don’t understand this one. You will be fined if you don’t drive your car every 15 days? Why
should anyone care if your operable car sits in your driveway?
• This is dumb. Do people who have garages have to move their cars? Why would we move a car
every 15 days if we aren't using it?
• OKay
• Why though?
• Worry about cleaning out your own garage before poking around in mine. Leave me out of it
organizing all the junk in the garage is on your Honey-Do list.
• People should be able to have whatever cars they want on their property whether they move
them or not.
• This is absurd! I should be able to keep my cars where we I want on my own property with or
without moving it!
• If it is on private property, there should be no issue. This is not the City’s concern.
• This is unnecessarily restrictive. I know even "rich" residents violate this--for example with spare
cars in the winter.
• Unreasonable. This targets elderly and disabled residents
• Some people go on vacations longer than 15 days or have to travel unexpectedly for family
emergencies. What is the 15 day window based on?
• Have an extra vehicle on your own property? Here's a fine!
• Absurd and unnecessary. Why should the city have the ability to dictate that I must drive every
15 days? I park in my driveway and often walk or bike. Why is it anyone's business but my own
when I next drive my car?
• This is ridiculous, You are saying that I cannot keep my car in my own personal driveway for
more than 2 weeks without moving it. Why? I use a bicycle for most things in summer.
Sometimes I don't drive my car for 3 weeks. What is wrong with that? Also, if someone goes on
a month-long vacation, they are not allowed to keep a vehicle on their own property while they
are away?
• Strike it. Iowa still has winters.
• This is ridiculous. If someone owns the property and wants to store a car, whose business is is
how often it is driven. How would you possibly keep track of this???
• Dumb and not important. If grandma does not drive anymore she should be allowed to leave
her car safely parked. Not bothering anyone.
• Seems reasonable, unless someone is working on vehicle repair in their driveway and requires
more than 15 days
• What do you care?
• I can't believe this is already in the city code. If a vehicle is operable and fully licensed, it should
not be forced to be moved at regular intervals. Seems like a completely unneeded code
regulation.
• Some of us professors travel for research during the summer and this would create a burden for
us.
• Make it 30 days residential and it is better. 90 days would be ideal for working people.
• Preposterous! Vacations??
• Why are these so different?
• Why does this need to be regulated? What if one goes on vacation?
• Some people don't drive much. Who cares if a car sits there? This is UNNECESSARY and invasive
of other people's rights.
• Why? So trucks used only in the winter, and motorcycles and sports cars used only in the
summer must be moved every 15 days?
• So you can’t go on vacation longer than two weeks? If you work from home and don’t use a car
frequently, you have to move it for no reason? This is absurd.
• That's ridiculous. You can't go out of town for longer than two weeks if they don't have a
garage??
• Wow. This seems like a silly ordinance already I can't leave my car in my driveway without
moving it?
• This would punish people who leave town for more than two weeks, which families often do.
Will they need to ask a neighbor to move their vehicles during that time so an not to be in
violation?
• Overbearing and intrusive to say the least. Some people ride bicycles, Cyride, or walk and may
not use a car for months at a time. You're demanding I drive my car every 2 weeks +1 day. This
ordinance is unacceptable.
• Is this city council aware of winter? Or people who work at home during, say, a pandemic? Also,
vacations are coming back as something people do again.
• Someone shouldn't be forced to use their car for no good reason
• If they are in a garage does that make a difference? Some people have multiple vehicles. Not
anyone else's business.
• This is an absolutely brilliant way to ensure that no one in Ames owns a motor home, project
car, racecar, classic under restoration, or any other non-primary vehicle.
• What point does this serve? If the vehicle is operable and on my property why must it regularly
be moved every 2 weeks?
• If I go on vacaction for more than 15 days will I not be allowed to leave my car in my driveway?
• If someone needs to park their vehicle on their own residential property for more than two
weeks - whether they are away for vacation or dealing with a family illness or crisis or simply
choosing to drive less - they should be able to do so without penalty
• Buy storage now!!!!
• This is ridiculous. I would be in violation of this ordinance if I went on vacation for more than 2
weeks. This does not make any sense.
• I don't think this is needed.
• Many people might have older vehicles that only are driven once a year, etc. Also, I guarantee
that with working from home this year many families only used one car, walked everywhere.
• Ames
• What about inoperable, but not junk vehicles?
• Does this mean my car on my property when I'm not using it because of covid is now violating
the law? That's ridiciculous. If I don't want to my car on my property I shouldn't have to.
• AMES
The proposed ordinance gives the City the power to abate violations of the ordinance when the owner
has failed to do so in a timely manner. Costs associated with abatement would be billed back to the
property owner and, if left unpaid, will be assessed to the property. Comments?
• very vague
• This is an extremely unfair concept and will only target those with some difficulty. This means
someone in the hospital for a few weeks can come home to realize they have essentially lost
their home due to "violations" of which they were unaware. That is inhumane! What is a "timely
manner"?
• Infringement Of citizens rights
• yes, but if it is a costly repair need to work with the owner if they don't have money.
• Good. As it should be.
• Agreed
• Nope. I only agreed to the rules I initially signed up for when I bought my house.
• This is the worst part. I’m going to pay you to move my trash can every week?
• Residents should get warnings first. Otherwise, great idea.
• These are brand-new violations and will wrongly target low income families. It’s going to
disproportionately affect our neighbors who are already trying to make ends meet. Why not
offer grants and incentives instead of of fining people and billing them for things they didn’t
want or couldn’t afford? Please think this through.
• Define a timely manner
• Should not be a blanket policy
• What if the owner can't afford to pay.
• Are fines necessary?
• Home repairs, maintenance, etc are so ungodly expensive these days, and I assume the city
would charge even more than an average contractor. This puts a lot of strain on lower incomes
families when they are already struggling to make ends meet. Ames is absolutely terrible about
catering to the rich, and the college students but doesn’t give a whole lot of thought to
affordable housing or helping lower income families.
• No. Just stop with your government overreach
• Unethical as elderly, disabled, those that work multiple jobs, etc. will be targeted more than the
wealthy and those living in new developments
• This week not help those that cannot afford to remedy the situation. It hurts the low income
families more than it helps them. We are Ames. We can do better.
• Yes
• What is timely manner? How many notifications or warnings
• Too vague. Define timely manner and time period. define number of notices and methods of
notices that homeowner has to receive before abatement occurs.
• Again...this will disproportionately impacts.low income residents and is something that is
unnecessary
• Fix the real problems in this city first. The rampant racism, the chapter of the kkk who harassed
supporters of BLM(like me), the health issues, the low vaccination rate, etc first. You do not
have time to do these things with all that on your plate
• You have more than enough to do, stop worrying about this crap
• If I wanted to live in an HOA, I would have moved into one. This also targets the poor.
• This will unduly penalize poor and disabled owners or owners who live here part time, etc.
• This is ridiculous.
• I think most people want to do the right thing to maintain their properties. But sometimes
people don't have the ability or resources to make it happen in a timely manner. These rules and
possible fines will just make it harder for elderly and low income families to fix the problems.
Perhaps the city could put together a program that helps families in need with things like this
through volunteer groups for the labor when possible and grants that cover the materials.
• Please oppose any owner occupied housing maintenance code. We all live differently and have
different standards, maintenance codes DO NOT promote diversity and inclusion and the poor
are often targets of codes like this. The last thing the City of Ames needs to do is police
homeowners, passing any part of an owner occupied maintenance code will open the door to
expanding this power in the future. Please vote no.
• Bad news. You are not thinking of people who are lower class and unable to afford these things.
Especially right as people are attempting to climb out of COVID-19 poverty, it is thoughtless and
cruel to send people a bill for something they never approved.
• Yes- charge back to owner for rectifying problem
• Of course you want to make us pay. You talk about affordable housing but you don’t want us
here.
• What you are trying to do is authoritarian and wrong. Stop trying to ruin our beautiful city.
• Why not just help? People need help, not more bills!
• This reeks of HOA- type power. When I purchased a home in Ames I specifically sought out
properties that did not have HOAs.
• Again, this feels elitist and oppressive
• Define timely manner. What about low income or elderly who maybe already cannot afford a
repair or something like that. These border on low key discrimination against those populations.
• As long as proper notification is made, and consideration is given for extenuating circumstances.
• I support this
• Sounds like a great way to burden disabled and mentally ill homeowners with more fees. This
always will likely never be enforced on the major rental groups based on current properties.
• Enforce existing codes on large landlord companies
• You do the work, you pay for it.
• Seems unnecessary.
• define timely. having a tree removed is a major expense that might have to be budgeted for and
a specialty contractor found.
• into a goddamn country club
• fair enough
• This seems like over reach. We pay property taxes, own our land and houses, so we can have
some control over our lives and things. These rules are a restriction on my ownership.
• This makes me very uneasy. What would be the protections for residents who are moving
forward with repairs in good faith?
• Ames: out eviling HOAs since 2021
• Would these costs be reasonable? As stated earlier, when costs exceed the real cost as
punishment all it serves to do is keep the poor poor by charging them money they don't have.
Additionally, if these things are not truly necessary for safety and it gets charged to the
homeowner that is predatory and discriminatory. Keeping the already less well off down is the
oppositie of what Ames should want.
• This is harmful to the low income and punitive.
• What is the justificiation for this?
• Please provide scientific research showing that this is detrimental to the health and safety of the
community.
• Sounds like not a problem for weathly individuals. Free labor with a small cost? They should love
that. This could be the difference of poor people eating or not due to a not important fine. Fines
only hurt the poor. This only benefits the rich. This isn't an HOA, it's a city where people live.
• No. When city hall and main street aren't eyesores then you can judge everyone else's
property.
• Not without appeals and due process here. I'd like to see a provision that city pays legal fees if
the owner/tenant/occupant wins.
• I live in South Campustown. There are not only rental houses, but commercial properties on
Welch that are vacant and essentially abandoned. With broken windows, noxious weeds on the
property, and litter. These should be cleaned up and the city should have the power of
enforcement. These are properties assessed at a million dollars. Their owners have the
resources for upkeep.
• I'm in favor of this
• Again, pretty classist. A neighbor who is worried about their property value calls and complains
to the city, and as a result somebody who doesn’t have the resources to take care of things is
left with a bill. What about instead of making a board of people who will judge which
homeowners need to do more, the city creates a board of volunteers who will help homeowners
improve their properties.
• Seems fair.
• Does not account for special circumstances
• The vagueness of these codes could really allow abuse of residents thru unnecessary and
arbitrary fines.
• This is bullshit
• Again many can't do or pay for the work to be done.
• This is an awful set of ordinances the city is propoisng. Shameful.
• I oppose this. The city should not have this power. Sounds like the city is mad that a judge isn't
siding with them. The city should have to continue to go to court over things and get shut down
when they are in the wrong.
• I think the City should go through a court process, unless an immediate threat to the health or
safety of the occupants or neighbors is documented before entry or abatement.
• The owner’s exclusive authority to determine how private property is used; The owner’s
peaceful possession, control, and enjoyment of his/her legally purchased, deeded private
property; That no local, city, county, state, or federal government has the authority to impose
directives, ordinances, fees, or fines regarding aesthetic landscaping, color selections, tree and
plant preservation, or open spaces on legally purchased/deeded private property; That no local,
city, county, state, or federal government representatives or their assigned agents may enter
private property without the written permission of the property owner or is in possession of a
lawful warrant from a legitimate court of law. This includes invasion of property rights and
privacy by government use of unmanned drone flights.
• If this is strictly landlords, then yes. Homeowners should be case by case.
• No comment
• Vote yes.
• Absolutely do not support this. The city has no business creating an HOA when residents never
asked for this, and altering someone's property without their consent is never ok.
• agreed
• So you can extort people too?
• All of these ordinances are telling me that you have not been dealing with properties that need
resolution and think enacting more crap on the rest of us will help. Just stop
• The civil courts will be busier than normal
• You are expecting us all to live in a gated community of old white people who have the time and
interest in tattling on their neighbors. All of these policies are threats to hard working middle
and lower class individuals. If I wanted this I could live in a gated retirement community. This is
basically punishing poor people for being poor: its discrimination. And youbwant to charge the
next person who buys the house for the faults of the previous owner?!
• Scope limitations must be codified.
• Not with the above proposals
• No. The ability of the homeowner needs to be assessed. Maybe they are on a fixed income etc.
You end up with a debtors prison type situation.
• This escalates sometimes minor infractions to extremely costly to property owners when
professional companies are hired, as competitive rates are unlikely to be demanded for work
done
• If you want people to address violations, you need to make sure they are capable of it first.
People may need support.
• AMES
• No. No. And no. What these ordinances look like to me is an attempt to put more responsibility
on land owners and less responsibility on the city of Ames when the city of Ames can’t keep up
with their own ordinances... these ordinances will only affect people that are already pulling the
short straw in life.
• Agree.
• Support
• Again, how will this effect low income families that may own a home that has some aspect in
violation they cannot afford to rememdy? The city essentially is hoping to create an
environment unwelcoming to anyone seeking to gain wealth in this community.
• n/a
• I believe many of these new code items will adversely affect lower income home owners. I
would much prefer the city offer grants and rebates to assist homeowners with some of the
items of concern.
• Yes
• Fair but specifics should be hashed out
• Doesn’t sound like a city I would want to live in!
• I mean, I works like a dream with the towing contracts.
• This is only hurting poor people!!
• There should be multiple warnings and at least a 1 month grace period before abatement is
assessed.
• Targets underserved persons. Unreasonable.
• This seems neccesary for enforcement
• Poor? F--- you!
• This depends entirely on which ordinances are passed. Some of these ordinances involve costs
which are not readily paid by those living in poverty. Why punish them more?
• no
• This should only be done when public SAFETY is involved. Who cares if someone's grass is high?
If it isn't hurting the general public, leave people alone. You are going to cause people to loose
their homes.
• Again those that need help there should be an option or support structure to provide that help.
• No, the owner needs warning and time to correct issues. Also how are fines/rates determined?
• As long as the owner has had sufficient time to correct the violation or exhaust their appeals of
the citation.
• So you are going to screw people over and make sure they pay. How very terrible of you.
• This will disproportionately impact low income residents.
• Again this seems to hit people least able to afford it
• Stop. The city isn't an HOA.
• Absolutely not.
• I'm ok with this as long as the other ordinances are rewritten. What is "timely" defined as?
• If this is done the home owner should only be billed if they are creating a safety hazard.
• Yes. If the city has to take time to remedy the situation, they should be reimbursed.
• NO NO NO NO you cannot rifle through other people's property to fulfill your rules and charge
them after. Oftentimes people who have junky yards can't afford to fix them or don't have the
time to. Or have a mental health problem or extenuating circumstances that are going on. You
never know what others are going through. Why wouldn't you choose to help your citizens
instead?
• Is there an appeals process? What happens if the person doesn't or can't pay?
• Penalties like these disproportionally affect low-income individuals - the fines constitute a larger
percentage of their income and would make it harder to resolve this issue in question.
• Whoopieee
• Fully disagree. Rental property generates income that can be reinvested into the property,
owner occupied residences do not. This might as well be a tax, which we already have plenty of.
• This could be hard for low-income and/or elderly homeowners
• Yes
• This is unfair as many times the people who can afford it will have already changed these things.
• Ames
• So they city gets to decide how people use their porperty now. That seems unfair.
• AMES
The proposed ordinance includes the establishment of a Property Maintenance Appeal Board that
would hear appeals of enforcement decisions of the ordinance. Comments?
• good idea
• Reasonable
• will be needed
• Very necessary. Who serves on this board? Keep habitual offenders off of the board.
• Needed.
• Better have some folks with a brain to administer this
• No thanks, I don’t live in a HOA neighborhood for a reason :)
• No
• Great idea.
• These are brand-new violations and will wrongly target low income families. It’s going to
disproportionately affect our neighbors who are already trying to make ends meet. Why not
offer grants and incentives instead of of fining people and billing them for things they didn’t
want or couldn’t afford? Please think this through.
• There has to be a way to appeal… to many points of view to please everyone
• As long as they have flexibility to work with people and not rubber stamp policies that are too
restrictive and over reaching
• Leave this to the courts, and not to a new administration board. The court provides prompt and
unbiased resolutions that follow the law. Further, provide adequate remedies to needed
persons. This is a disguised home owners association board and the city should dissolve this
rule.
• No
• No!
• YES
• Absolutely stupid. Just another reason for a bigger government. This is ridiculous.
• This will likely be a board made up of upper class white individuals like a majority of Ames
boards and commissions and will be a pretty bad step in the wrong direction.
• The ordinance shouldn’t go through so this would be unnecessary
• No. I do not wish to have a government imposed HOA.
• If I wanted to live in an HOA I would have moved into one.
• Definitely not interested in hiring a bunch of auditors to oversee this list of absurd property
demands. This whole thing is a disgusting power grab! Comepletely disagree with the entire
principal of policing the whole city with a citywide HOA like this.
• How about just have these people go offer to help with alleviating the problems instead of
sitting around discussing.
• Please oppose any owner occupied housing maintenance code. We all live differently and have
different standards, maintenance codes DO NOT promote diversity and inclusion and the poor
are often targets of codes like this. The last thing the City of Ames needs to do is police
homeowners, passing any part of an owner occupied maintenance code will open the door to
expanding this power in the future. Please vote no.
• So I have to go beg a committee and explain my hardship publicly. How demeaning
• If I wanted to live in a HOA neighborhood I would have. A city HOA is NOT what ames needs.
Focus your attention on better things.
• What a colossal, bloated, waste of tax payer's dollars. NO.
• Sounds again like a big HOA. I don't want to live in a city run this way.
• I would like to see a Community Advisory group as well as an Appeal process - that involves
community members and input
• One more waste of Ames time and money. Fix roads, work on lowering apartment rents, bring
more affordable family housing to Ames, revamp retail in places like the mall, do a convention
area to attract business and revenue to our town economy
• This appeal board may have a lot of business if all these ordinances are adopted. Please insure
they have regular and convenient hours.
• This will absolutely be abused by the major property groups who have the time, money, and
energy to fight.
• Enforce existing codes on large landlord companies
• If you do this, there should definitely be an appeal board.
• who would sit on this board and who would appoint the members?
• this is why college kids flee ames when they graduate
• whatever floats your boat
• Yes, let's give some people a power rush of nit picking other people's lives and homes. NO.
• This just all feels ripe for making life harder for everybody and wasting a whole lit of time and
money. There has to be a better way to maintain properties in Ames without making a punitive
system based on neighbors harassing neighbors just to keep property values up. This doesn’t
seem like a system that will make Ames a better place to live. On the contrary.
• Can you name it the Board of Busybodies?
• Sounds like it will be a bunch of rich people with nothing to do.
• Please provide scientific research showing that this is detrimental to the health and safety of the
community.
• I feel like they'll be looking for things to enforce rather than helping the people. I'd prefer these
decisions stay with elected City Council staff and not randomly elected individuals that no one
really knows about. Also, if this is all they concentrate on, we might just get more rules that fix
non-existent problems.
• Appointed by whom? How many members? Elected officials? Vague.
• This should be independent of the city, IE, not staffed by city workers, council members, etc.
Board should be elected.
• I'm concerned that this board may not represent the diversity of our community.
• I'm in favor of this, and also believe that we should think carefully about the membership on this
board. It should be representative of different constituents in Ames, so that these new rules
aren't used in a discriminatory way.
• See comments from #19.
• Seems fair.
• Agree on a board to review
• This is bulls---.
• NO. Judging by the attitude the city has demonstrated towards property maintenance, I can't
think of a worse idea.
• Yes
• This board would be a farce.
• Will this be useful for tenants, or just allow NIMBY practices?
• No comment
• Who is on the board? What are their guiding principles?
• Vote yes.
• I hope none of this passes anyways so this wouldn't be necessary, but if it is I hope you have
actual lower- to middle-income residents on the appeal board and not just super wealthy people
(and/or city employees who have a vested interest in being able to fine people)
• agreed
• The same people should want a city wide HOA?
• Nope.
• Another Ames Bureaucracy funded by taxpayer dollars.
• When and how would this be available? Handicapped, special needs, and poor people don’t
have the lixury of most people to trek to a court house for a hearing at an inconvenient time. It
costs time and money so you’re setting them up for failure.
• So more government bureaucracy
• How about a board that helps homeowners find assistance, both monetary and physical to help
with issues??
• I am concerned about having unelected officials making often arbitrary decisions about levying
fines for infractionsitrary
• Sounds like a government money grab
• So, a city-wide HOA?
• Yikes. No thanks.
• Agree
• Support
• Any of the above proposed requires this board to exist.
• How big is board going to be. You are going to be VERY, VERY busy!!!
• The fact that this would be mostly complaint driven makes it seem like it might be a way for
neighbors who do not like each other to "tattle" on each other. If a Board is created it would
have to have homeowners from a variety of neighborhoods , and a diversity of income
represented.
• Yes
• Is this a worthwhile use of tax dollars, who should be allowed on the board and what other
options could there be?
• Damn right!
• I’m all for giving citizens a shot at sticking it to the government and preventing things from
getting done. I nominate Mike: the old rummy who makes all the mopeds/e-bikes whenever he
finds time to take a break from drinking cheap rum and yelling at the freeloaders who run public
works.
• They would need to very well staffed, because this is way too many ridiculous regulations.
• If this protects homeowners, yes. If it allows for pettiness from neighbors, no.
• Unnecessary and a waste of taxpayers’ money.
• Poor and been told to f--- off? We'll tell you twice!
• Who determines who serves on such a board?
• no
• How much is this going to cost?
• Instead of making it an appeal board how about a community support system to help each
other.
• Good, how is this board appointed?
• If a Property Maintenance Appeal board functions like an independent jury and has wide
latitude in interpreting city code to establish public health and safety, it could work. If a Property
Maintenance Appeal board became a slave to enforcing the letter of city code, it would be
almost worthless.
• Unless this is made up of property owners and renters that are 50% students, it is a sham. We
know what this is about, punishing the poor and the students in this town.
• This sounds like a HOA, don’t turn Ames into a HOA.
• No. THE CITY IS NOT AN HOA. STOP TRYING TO POLICE PRIVATE CITIZENS CHOICES ON THEIR
OWN PROPERTY!
• I support
• They're going to have their hands full. You're going to see a LOT of appeals to these arbitrary
and asinine regulations.
• Absolutely this would need to be established if any of these ordinances are put in place. There is
way too much vagueness in how these are written, and these ordinances are ripe for being
exploited by people who wish to punish neighbors they don't like.
• Yes.
• I guess if you are going to create all these insane rules, there will be a lot of people appealing so
you will definitely need a board.
• I think this would be a good way to distinguish between homes which are in need of a little work
(ok) and homes which are clearly decrepit and beyond repair.
• who would be on this commision, how are they appointed, what authoity will they have
• Are these paid or volunteer positions and what are the skills required for the board?
• There definitely needs to be a process for appealing these ordinances if put into place given
their broadness, so this is necessary at minimum if these ordinances are passed. But it is also an
example of the significant increase in resources needed to enforce and manage these proposed
ordinances with little return on that resource investment in terms of community well-being.
• CONFORM!!!!
• Just what we need, another board telling property owners what they can and cannot do, with
bias towards their own agendas.
• Yes
• It seems judgmental.
• So the city is now going to have a board of grouchy neighbors deciding what is appropriate.
• Overall, in matters of true safety, government has a responsibility to act. But, I think the City is
overreaching with a lot of these items.
Which option best describes you?
• Homeowner: 161
• Tenant: 22
• Landlord: 7
• Commercial Business Owner: 0
• Industrial Business Owner: 0
• Other:
o both homeowner and landlord
o Work in Ames
o Other
o Homeowner / landlord / business owner
o mobile home owner on rented lot
o Former homeowner of Ames who still frequents and engages in the community.
o Homeowner and landlord
o Living in relative’s property
o Ames resident for 28 years.
o Homeowner and Landlord
o Homeowner and Landlord
o Human
o 25 year non-native Ames resident
o Former tenant
o Former resident
Any additional comments:
• Doesn’t the city of Ames I have more things to do with your time than micromanage private
property?
• I believe that these are all wonderful additions. To me these are the very least a
homeowner/landlord should do. Ames needs this and it needs to be enforced.
• Being an homeowner and landlord I often get frustrated with how strict the rental code is and
how non-rentals can look like crap and get away with almost anything. I would guess 95% of
homes in Ames would not pass rental code if held to the same standered. So I do think non-
rentals should have some kind of code to keep Ames looking good and to be fair to everyone. At
the same time I do not want government over reach so we need something but also need to
make sure we do not go too far and try to control homeowners. I think many of the rental codes
go too far and would not want that with this too. I understand safety but many rental codes and
items the inspectors make you do for rentals is silly and have nothing to do with safety and that
should be looked at too as I do think we have overreach in the rental code.
• I agree with all of these, they are fair as long as it is enforced to both owner occupied and
rentals not one standard for one and not the other. I would like to ask that a current code be
changed to allow for rental owners that are in compliance with all factors that if they have a 5
bedroom house but based on the limitation can only allow 4 renters. this is a unfair usage
limitation to a property and not uniform code to a house that is owner occupied and has 3
bedrooms but 4 adults living in it.. of which there are many in ames. as long as a property owner
is maintainint his or her house they should be held to the same standards. this would I think
incentive the rental owners and home owners to keep property properly maintained
• Adopt the International Code Council's Property Maintenance Code and enforce it.
• In dealing with city employees in the past, I’m afraid of strict enforcement of codes without the
use of common sense. As an Ames homeowner with almost two acres of mostly natural woods
and a creek, my concern is arbitrary enforcement and standards being applied to natural areas
such as woods that will cause damage to habitat and prohibitive costs if the city decides to
“abate” a perceived issue.
• Stay in your lane and away from my property. This is America. If you want perfect lawns and
strict rules, move to an HOA.
• I disagree with most of this
• There are a lot of 'rules' here which makes this seem all very authoritative, a city wide HOA. Not
something for a 'friendly' city. I would hate for some of these to make life more difficult for
those having a tough time as it is. Perhaps Ames also needs to establish some 'aid' for those
who need help with their property. One of many examples would be the removal of old trees. I
am sure there a number of home owners in Ames older neighborhoods that could certainly use
help.
• Great ideas! Thank you for trying to keep Ames a city that people want to move to!
• These are brand-new violations and will wrongly target low income families. It’s going to
disproportionately affect our neighbors who are already trying to make ends meet. Why not
offer grants and incentives instead of of fining people and billing them for things they didn’t
want or couldn’t afford? Please think this through.
• Who the heck came up with this list… there is a lot more the city should be concentrating on
rather than trying to come down on decent home owners.
• I agree with a comment from Mindi Callison, "Most of these issues are targeting low-income
families who already have to work extremely hard to make ends meet. How in the world does
our city think that fining low-income families for structural issues would help our neighbors at
all? Why not offer grants and initiatives to fix up the housing and offer more affordable options
for families to live? This was not a well thought out plan and I think the city needs to seriously
reconsider."
• How will city deal with violations caused by tenants when it is tenant responsible for mowing,
snow removal and other exterior maintenance. Will landlord pass on fines or evict? Can landlord
physically remove tenant property if it violates abandoned property rules (car that hasn't moved
in 14 days)
• "We have many landlords or as known as slumloards that do nothing to maintain a healthy
environment for the tanant, some would on purpose not fix property and blame it on tanen to
extract the security deposit.
• City of ames need to focus on rental properties maintinace and leave homeowners alone. I
understand the need of clearing sidewalks from snow, but other than than it's becoming an HOA
dictatorship, if I wanted an HOA I would've lived in such environment.
• Rathar than chasing residents and home owners with unnecessary fines, the city focus should be
on maintaining roads and infrastructure, to provide better service and more enjoyable
experience living in the city of Ames "
• If I wanted a Home Owner's Association, I would have bought a property with one. These laws
frustrate the city's legal purpose as to ensure the health, safety, and welfare of thier residents.
Although many proposed rule changes cite to safety concerns, I find the more pressing purpose
is to make properties more aesthetically pleasing than protecting citizens. These city laws are far
too overreaching for my comfort.
• I don’t live in a HOA for a reason. I moved out of my townhouse association years ago because
people on a power trip running around handing out ridiculous violations and making it a terrible
place to live. I pay plenty of property taxes that keep going up every year to own my home and
attempt to live in peace. Ames does not need people running around looking for issues on
people’s private property to make life harder for them or make it harder for them to pay their
bills. I don’t want to live in a cookie cutter city where people are calling in complaints about
their neighbors all the time. I don’t want local government to tell me how to live or what to do
with my home. Don’t you guys have some old historic building to knock down and replace with
empty apartments or kill a bunch if 100 year old trees and wildlife or something? This whole this
is completely ridiculous and will cause a lot of undue hardship on people that are just trying to
work, live j their homes, and take care of their families. There are plenty of other things Ames
can do and spend our tax dollars on.
• Find something important to do instead of punishing poor people
• Most of these rules target low income families who cannot pay to have their exteriors taken
care of and who do not have the time or physical capabilities to do it themselves. We do not
need any more gentrification in Ames. I am strongly opposed to the enabling of gentrification.
• Who gets to decide what is junk or what is treasure? Ames is not here to be a Home Owners
Association. Lets find ways to help the property owners. Let’s try to understand them. Not every
situation is going to be the same. Some may not have the time, some may not have the money,
some may like it just the way it is. Why do others get to decide how my property looks? If it is
safe, then it should be left alone.
• "I understand what you're trying to do here but I have serious issues with the time frames
established, with some of the ""nanny-state"" situation laid out. If I wanted to be lorded over
by an HOA then I'd have bought in a place governed by such a covenant. I have zero interest in
any HOA but have very specific heartburn over the city stepping in as said power.
• Finally I have serious equity concerns. The proposals would be a heavy hit on the lower income
people, those working 70 hours a week to keep paying the mortgage or rent and they're
exhausted.
• If you codify all of this, where's the mechanism for the solo parents and working poor and the
disabled and anyone else who is doing their best to keep this gs up but may need more than the
narrow proposed window to accomplish the work. Are you also proposing a network where
people who need help can reach out and get free assistance? Volunteers who will organize
workdays for those facing fines who want the assistance? Grace periods, warnings, etc?
• I have a great many concerns. "
• I have a garden in the 'right of way' or 'hellstrip' that I maintain and neighbors give positive
feedback on. The garden has some plants that reach 4 feet but they are not near driveways,
street corners, or impeed the sidewalk. I love this aspect about Ames because these gardens are
not allowed in some cities. Please do not install the #6 idea.
• Please carefully consider which of these policies are actually to prevent hazardous conditions to
the public, and which are based on aesthetics. Please consider how these measures will punish
people who may not be financially or physically able to comply, and provide assistance to such
people. Many terms need to be much more clearly defined.
• Thanks to whomever put this together. I do agree with many of these points but some need
clarity.
• "All of these ordinances disproportionately impact low income residents. Ames claims they are
working to help those citizens and yet they keep passing or proposing ordinances that can harm
them. They don't have the money to remedy a lot of these situations and this proposal will fine
them and attempt to drive them deeper into financial strain.
• If Ames is truly the progressive community it claims to be, why not create programs that help
people take care of these issues rather than fining them for it. It is just a terrible idea."
• This ordinance has racist undertones and passing it would cause massive uproar. Passing it
would also show that you agree with the history of gentrification and whitening of suburban
areas think very carefully about what each of these things mean because if you pass this, you
will have made clear which side of history you are on.
• You have more than enough to do, stop worrying about this crap. Please use your resources to
fix current infrastructure issues and have maintenance schedules. This is by far the most
ridiculous load I have read by the City yet.
• Stop making it harder for people to live here. We're a small town in Iowa, not friggin Seattle.
• "This is a grotesque plan and reeks of privilege. I don't agree with how every neighbor's
house/yard looks, but it is THEIR yard. If I wanted to spend my days worried I might get fined for
leaving my garbage bin out overnight, I'd move somewhere with an HOA. This essentially
creates a city-wide HOA and will disproportionately impact poor and disabled people the most.
It's a power grab that seeks to create overreaching city-wide control over property owners and
it 100% should NOT pass.
• There is a different between DANGEROUS situations (open holes and falling down structures)
and just ANNOYING. Focus on the dangerous things as a council, and leave the annoying things
alone so we don't all have to police our neighbors and worry about our neighbors policing us.
This plan does NOT build community - it will only build community paranoia.
• "I am frustrated and disappointed with the proposed ordinance. In my time around Ames, I have
not once observed issues with any of these problems, as many of these ideas are already
codified or upheld through community agreements. There is a big difference between
dangerous and annoying when it comes to property management. It is very clear where many of
these proposals fall.
• Rentals are inherently different than privately-owned properties and commercial properties.
• Many of these proposals create ridiculous and unfair standards that will punish the citizens who
need the most grace and help. Fining citizens and creating a shadowy board that will evaluate
whether or not the City was justified in fining them seems like a waste of time and energy that
could be better put into many other measures.
• The City of Ames is NOT an HOA. Putting these measures in place for homeowners and business
owners will put us all one giant step closer to that.
• Please do not accept, and seriously re-evaluate, these recommendations."
• If you move this route on some of these items there needs to be more specific information on
what each really means. They sound pretty subjective as written in many cases. I also think that
the process should include a few warnings and some attempts by the city to help the property
owner comply before fines are assessed.
• "This suite of rule stinks very badly of a ""broken windows policing"" mindset. While not
explicitly racist or classist, in effect often just some New Jim Crow garbage.
• Even assuming no ill intent, it is very much targeting symptoms rather than root causes, and
aiming to ""solve"" through punishment rather than the use of more compassionate means.
• Other cities have tried this, Ames can and should do better. "
• Please oppose any owner occupied housing maintenance code. We all live differently and have
different standards, maintenance codes DO NOT promote diversity and inclusion and the poor
are often targets of codes like this. The last thing the City of Ames needs to do is police
homeowners, passing any part of an owner occupied maintenance code will open the door to
expanding this power in the future. Please vote no.
• While some of these proposed ordinances would cause work for me, it is more than worth it to
have something to combat the seriously neglected and junkyard properties in our
neighborhood.
• We don’t need a city code for our homes, they are ours, you are out of line doing this. Ames
should be welcoming. You will turn neighbor against neighbor and I have a hard enough time
financially already. We aren’t all rich people in new homes.
• There are also commercial properties that pose hazards and eyesores such as the Burger King on
Lincoln Way. There may be ordinances in effect to address these situations but I do not see
them being enforced. Seems like unenforced codes allow for successful appeals of selective
enforcement.
• Most of these issues are targeting low-income families who already have to work extremely
hard to make ends meet. How in the world does our city think that fining low-income families
for structural issues would help our neighbors at all? Why not offer grants and initiatives to fix
up the housing and offer more affordable options for families to live? This was not a well
thought out plan and I think the city needs to seriously reconsider.
• These proposed ordinances scare me for the direction this city is going and lead me to question
whether I really wish to continue living in a city so desperate to govern how I live my life and
manage my property. This is governmental overreach from top to bottom, classist, ableist, and
racist. You're just looking for ways to punish people and drive them out of the city rather than
embracing natural habitat and diversity.
• This seems aimed at trying to push away or financially penalize low income and disabled
homeowners while inconveniencing even vaster swaths of people who are just minding their
own business, taking care of their homes as they see fit. It's important to evaluate these issues,
but this feels like having a strict HOA suddenly in charge of the whole city. And I hate HOAs. I
searched far and wide to buy into a neighborhood without an HOA, not because I will have
graffiti and dead cars, but because it's my home and I want to feel AT HOME, not "under his
eye." I was going to build a new home here next year and this would make me reconsider my
plans to put my dream house in Ames.
• Overall I feel that many of these proposals target mainly low-income households, and only
address the symptoms of poverty rather than the root cause. Slapping people with a fine does
nothing to solve the problems and instead just perpetuates poor living situations. Fining people
who can't afford to fix their homes doesn't help them fix it any sooner. It also could encourage
residents to go on "neighborhood watch" to report their neighbors to the city rather than
solving issues interpersonally. A more kind, compassionate response to finding your neighbors'
exterior ugly would be to knock on their door and ask if they need some help.
• "When we moved to Ames three years ago, we specifically sought out neighborhoods without
HOAs as we wanted to live in a more diverse neighborhood where homeowners have the
freedom to do what they please with their yards. Too often, rules like this target and put too
much of a burden on families that are already feeling financial strain or other strain that make
maintaining the (white) ideal of a ""perfect"" exterior out of reach. For instance, my elderly
neighbor, who as always maintained a very nice lawn, suffered a stroke this summer and now he
and his wife are struggling with yard work and would be in violation of some of the proposed
concepts. I'm not sure how fining them would solve any issues except make their situation even
more stressful.
• I also think concepts such as these would be a setback to environmental efforts to convert lawns
into more biodiverse + environmentally friendly areas and a setback for pollinator friendly
efforts such as No Mow May these go against the conventional idea for what a perfect exterior
looks like.
• To sum up, I am against most of these concepts being put in place, particularly the ones that are
more about aesthetics rather than safety, and feel they would create more problems and
frustrations than they would solve, especially if breaking the standards results in a fine rather
than the city finding resources to help those struggling with their yards.
• Thank you for taking time to read and consider my comments!"
• It feels important to stress that stepping back, the tone of these code amendments feels very
classist, ableist, and elitist. Many of the proposed amendments will affect lower to middle class
working people with often minimal resources. Is that your intention?
• Stop trying to make the whole town a HOA. Worry about other things too like I mentioned
above. Invest in school resource officers, support small local businesses and attract new
businesses including family friendly things to town. Stop the old fashioned no new growth
concept like late 1990's.
• I don't see the justification for many of these rules. Most of the property in Ames is well
maintained compared to other towns/cities I visit.
• I understand the desire to see every single household is in order front to back, side to side and
top to bottom. While it's laudable, it may be unworkable. I will do my part and assist my
neighbors in doing theirs, should they need it. It may be the case that people in other
neighborhoods face challenges that cause them to run afoul of the proposed ordinances, and
said folk may be less likely to afford the fines and fees from violating your ordinances.
• "There is currently a home literally rotting apart on my street, Franklin Avenue. The property,
419 Franklin Avenue, has an exterior door jam that is literally falling off from rot and until just
recently had almost no paint. I saw a city inspection vehicle on the premises and now the
landlord did some malicious compliance by spray painting a puke brown color on just the facade
of the house.
• It seems like the city should enforce the current codes and focus on beautifying rotting
properties owned by landlords and property groups like MTR as opposed to bothering actual
homeowners.
• We already have a housing crisis in this town with the cost of housing and how many properties
are snatched up by bloated property groups. Seeking to add HOA-like codes will just make Ames
an even less accessible place to own a home.
• tl;dr - enforce the codes you already have on blight slumlords like MTR and others"
• "I want our neighborhoods to look good too, but if I wanted this kind of regulation, then I'd live
in an HOA. This only hurts low-income homes with no added assistance or help for them. As
someone who hates tall grass, but has worked 2 jobs and doesn't always have a weekend to
mow the grass in the summer, how is this helpful.
• The city should have an ordinance of no expectations of homeowners that isn't already on the
city itself. Plowing is horrible in this town on any street that isn't utilized by a bus and has an
average property value of less than $250k. The yardwaste pick-up options are horrific, including
with the city's derecho pick-up that took 2 months and left huge divots in everyone's grass. Fix
the streets first before expecting every homeowner to have house looking pristine."
• If I wanted to live in an over restrictive HOA, I would have moved to one. These all seem
controlling and unnecessary - many of them far more strict than necessary for "safety" or
whatever you're all claiming they are for. In no way does tall grass cause a health or safety issue.
Is it ugly? Depends on the person. Is "turf grass" ugly? In many parts of the south it sure is, as it
is consumes vast quantities of water and reduces the biodiversity of the area. People are being
paid to change their lawns to native plants and remove the outdated idea that everyone needs a
manicured turf grass lawn. The city seems to be taking a big step backwards with these
proposed ordinances.
• Most of this seems unneeded. Homeowners take care of their property to the best of their
ability. It is the management company rental properties that I see in town that look ragged and
unkept.
• Some of these sound rather dumb but most of them are fine. It does feel oddly weird how much
control you want to have over homeowners lives but whatever.
• "The tree trimming over streets and side walks is a good one. And keeping grass, snow and
debris off the sidewalks is good.
• My only problem with the snow in the street is that the snow plows frequently plug up
driveways and often the only way to clear them is to push the snow back out to the street.
• If you want people to remove yard waste that quickly you need to make it easier to get rid of.
• Many of these seem more like things you'd find in an HOA...if I wanted to live in an HOA, I'd
move into a neighborhood that had one. It feels very controlling and overreaching."
• This just all feels ripe for making life harder for everybody and wasting a whole lot of time and
money. There has to be a better way to maintain properties in Ames without making a punitive
system based on neighbors harassing neighbors just to keep property values up. This doesn’t
seem like a system that will make Ames a better place to live. On the contrary. I would like to
know who proposed this plan and would like to hear justifications for the proposed ordinances
based on whether or not they have been used and have been effective in other towns. I suggest
Ames take the time to gather info about what programs have worked in other cities because
these all seem like knee-jerk ideas that won’t actually have the desired effect. If we actually
want to have safer and more beautiful properties in Ames, there has to be a better way.
• Getting the city in the middle of what are essentially senseless neighbor to neighbor squabbles
is a fool’s errand.
• This is a step in the wrong direction for Ames. These ordinances serve to appease the most
controlling and unpleasant of neighbors who just want to see their fellow neighbors comply
rather than show any compassion. If the garbage can is a problem, maybe ask the neighbor if
they suffer from mobility problems and can only get the can out or back when their staff comes
to assist them 3 days per week. It would be unreasonable to expect that person to get the can
back within 24 hours without assistance. What about the single mom who makes minimum
wage trying to get to the mowing the grass but she hasn't had a day off in 13 days and can't get
to it? Should she be punished with this ordinance? Should she have her lawn mowed and be
charged $150 for something that hired would be $30? Should she be financially punished for
doing her best to make ends meet? These ordinances comes from a place of privilege and lack of
compassion. They are not necessary for the well being and safety of the residents of Ames. I
encourage you to think about the harm these ordinances would cause and to what gain? The
city takes fewer complaints from busy-body neighbors who have nothing better to do than
complain about their neighbors instead of talking to them or asking if they need help. I know the
city said that rental owners would like to see equal treatment and not have stricter standards...
so maybe remove the unnecessary standards from rentals instead of adding ridiculous ones to
owner occupied homes. Problem solved.
• Please say NO to all ordinance changes. Unnecessary and harmful. No real justification when it
comes to health or safety.
• This is harmful to the low income and punitive. No legitimate health or safety reason for any of
these. Do not turn the city into an HOA that no one opted to live in.
• "The city should be encouraging the elimination of turf grass in favor of more native plantings
and ornamental flowers, not discouraging it for uniformity and to appease those who do the
loudest complaining. Maybe the city could even take a lesson from other cities that are
monetarily incentivizing the switch to native plantings away from turf grasses.
• There are some ""turf"" style grasses that are ""no mow"" and are designed to just grow and
not be mowed. They are combined with clovers and other ground covers, but get to be about 14
inches tall. These bio diverse and ecologically beneficial plantings would be discouraged under
new city ordinances.
• These ordinances target low income houses as well as those with disabilities or mental health
struggles. If the stated objective is not to punish but to assist, then assist. Come up with grants
for fixing up homes where the owners are struggling to make ends meet. Provide assistance.
Doing the work for someone that can easily be argued is totally unnecessary and purely for the
aesthetic benefit of the nosy and overbearing and then way overcharging for it is in no way
assistance to those who these ordinances target.
• And don't even get me started on how the requirements for rental properties are extreme and
overbearing."
• "Please provide scientific research showing that this is detrimental to the health and safety of
the community. I challenge you to provide any non biased scientific research backing any of
these up. This is government overstepping in all the possible ways. These ordinances read like
an HOA dream list of infractions for punishing anyone who isn't part of the ""in-group.""
• Please consider the ecological impact of these requests. We must co-exist with nature and the
environment. Turf grass in actually invasive and non-native as well as a resource hog - using
more water and resources than farming. It is the single largest crop grown and it serves no
justifiable purpose. It is a status symbol at that is all. It is a monoculture that uses vast quantities
of harmful chemicals. If residents want to plant things that are beneficial to pollinators and
stand more than 12 inches tall that should absolutely be encouraged, not discouraged. These
ordinances are a huge step backwards for Ames, a community that I once thought prided itself
on being progressive and green. These ordinances are anything but. I strongly oppose all
attempts to unnecessarily control residents for what one person believes is ""beautiful"" but has
not scientific backing. Please consider the real reason for these. To keep those who are
struggling down and to widen the gap between those who are poor and minorities. These
ordinances are shameful and discriminatory. "
• I'm surprised that all these codes came about from one small complaint in an article. These
codes remind me of a rich neighborhood with an HOA that only harasses their residents. The
only people who benefit from an HOA are the wealthiest residents who want to micro manage
other people's property in their vision. Sure long grass doesn't look appealing, but what if the
residents cannot mow? What if they want a more natural looking yard? Why put more control
over residents in your hands that will only hurt the poor of the City? The rich do not worry about
these problems and see them as reasonable. The poor worry about potential fines that could be
going to feeding their families. Also, this all seems like it will disproportionately affect people of
color. From rich entitled neighbors tattling on the littlest of things to exert control, to fines that
will make life harder, etc. Please don't exert HOA control over your residents. There will be a
further divide amongst those poor and rich.
• "I am all for properties and neighborhoods that are conducive to providing high quality of life
conditions and spaces through exterior maintenance, but these proposals are an overreach of
the City of Ames’ power and responsibility for private property owners.
• Also, several of the suggestions are vague and arbitrary in their language. Words matter.
• Finally, several seem to be the reverse of the goals that the City holds insofar as creating
habitats for wildlife and pollinators, keeping excess and polluted storm water out of the sewer
system, and simply making our neighborhoods pleasant and beautiful places to live. "
• These sound like a HOA standards. I didn’t vote for a HOA
• This entire code seems anti-poor and anti-environmental. I’m disappointed that the City of
Ames would consider some of the items on this list.
• These ordinances seem like a massive waste of time, and many are significant oversteps
• I didn't realize Ames was turning into an HOA. This all turns me off from wanting to own a home
here. I'm pretty disappointed.
• The issue of litter and messes n courtyards and sidewalks outside private businesses needs to be
addressed. Cigarette butts, food wrappers, and spills litter planters, easements, and walkways
throughout Campustown. If business owners are held responsible for keeping their sidewalks
clear of snow, ice, and gravel they can and should be held accountable for power washing their
sidewalks.
• "Please consider allowing well maintained gardens in the right of way. I can see why someone
wouldn’t want a messy weedy unmowed right of way because that makes the neighborhood
look messy. But a well kept garden in the right of way brings beauty to a neighborhood and is a
more environmentally friendly option than simply maintaining turf grass. Also, beneficial to
pollinators.
• Many of the city’s gardens from the Adopt a Garden Program are already in the right of way as it
is. "
• Many of these seem far too overreaching. If there is a consistent issue with a particular resident
that happens over a time period that is one thing, but I see this opening up residents that are
doing a good job overall getting hit for infractions due to neighbor conflict.
• A home is a home, all of the safety standards for landlord should be the same as for
homeowners
• In general, this feels pretty classist. I think Ames is a fine city to live in, and I don’t think of it as a
city that needs to be cleaned up. This feels like some people who are very judgmental of their
neighbors are trying to further disadvantage people who, for some reason or another, struggle
to keep their property perfectly maintained. If the city truly wanted to be a place that is good to
live in, instead of treating these issues as things to punish, they would offer programs to help
owners to improve their property. I also find the idea the home values in Ames are being
affected by these things laughable. Has anyone considered this looked at the rate of increase of
property in Ames over the last 5 years‽
• Enforcement of these ordinances will be a key component of getting compliant. Which city
agency will be responsible for enforcement?
• Thank you for the opportunity to comment.
• If I wanted rules close to what an HOA has then I would have moved to a neighborhood with
one. These rules are vague and arbitrary and do nothing to actually improve neighborhoods.
• This is such utter bullshit. This is a city, not an HOA. If I wanted an HOA I would live in Somerset
with all the rest of the insufferable people.
• I think the City of Ames needs to think more about the people and less about a lawn not being
mowed. If a complain is made, of course the incident should be investigated. But they also need
to work with and for the citizens.
• It made sense to make rules for rental properties to deal with these issues because the landlord
may not see these issues on a daily basis. However, asking a homeowner to restrict the use of
their property that they see and maintain every day seems like a violation of our rights to enjoy
the property we paid for. The city already violates the rules about ROW vegetation with their
rain gardens on Ridgewood and 24th streets. I am wondering if the city will replant these areas
to come into compliance or does the homeowner have to take on that expense and work?
• The logic behind imposing codes on private home owners because they apply to apartment
owners is ridiculous. It's obvious that most people renting will expect a standard of care which
isn't necessarily in the apartment owner's interest. Private property owners are more than
capable of making decisions for their own standards. I'm extremely disappointed in the codes
presented in the proposal. It's depressing to hear that the city is considering so many insensitive
and invasive policies which target low income residents, gardeners, and
environmental/ecological systems.
• "I would like research backed ordinances - studies showing vegetation causes accidents. Maybe
the city could even research how lawns are bad and then write ordinances outlawing those
instead of taking huge steps backwards. Mowing is bad for the environment, the ecosystem and
allergies.
• This reads like a busybody HOA wish list.
• I oppose ALL proposed ordinances. "
• "As a rental property owner I want to make it very clear that I am not frustrated that owner-
occupants are not held to the same ridiculous standards. Rather, I am frustrated that the
ridiculous standards exist in the first place. Please don't misrepresent rental property owners in
this.
• I would rather the excessive standards be removed from rentals rather than added to owner
occupants. Trash cans do not need to be removed from the curb within 24 hours. That's absurd
and doesn't hurt anyone. Grass does not need to be below 12 inches to appease the historical
idea that a manicured lawn symbolized that you were wealthy enough to have slaves to take
care of it for you. That's just gross and really disheartening to see given the current climate in
the united states. I thought Ames was significantly more progressive than this.
• I would also like to see the requirement that rentals have licensed plumbers and electricians and
HVAC technicians perform work removed. Owner-occupants get to perform the work as long as
they get a permit and inspections. Same should be the case for rentals. I would like to see the
12 inch grass rule removed from rentals. This is outdated and racist.
• This reads like Ames is looking for gentrification and to run out the low income families in town.
Sometimes for rentals or houses to be affordable they need to be less ""manicured"" and have
less spent on updates. They are still maintained to be habitable, but not all housing can be
$400,000 and look like it. That would run out the low income residents in both rentals and
owner-occupied homes. If you are truly concerned about a citizen make a fund of grants for
updates so that someone who can't afford to fix their siding can get a grant to do so so their
house does not deteriorate. Do not take the person who can't afford the work and fine them so
that they definitely can't afford it. That's some backwards thinking right there. "
• "I have submitted more much detailed comments to the City Council.
• I think the text of the proposed ordinance, rather than simple summaries of the provisionsf,
should have been sent to neighborhood representatives for distribution and used in this
questionnaire.
• The narrow, linear comment windows above discourage anything but brief, superficial
comments and are not conducive to a writer’s review and revision. I did not comment at all on
some questions above, because of those inconvenient input limitations."
• "This list of ""property maintenance standards"" is one of the most poorly thought out disasters
I have ever seen. The failure to define terms is appalling. Many of these ""standards"" are so
vague that they could be use in almost any way imaginable to harass property owners. It is an
insult to private property owners and taxpayers. It is discriminatory against the elderly, the
disabled, the poor, and smacks of elitism.
• It promotes divisiveness rather than inclusiveness. It stands in direct opposition to the City
Council's stated goals of:
• We Value Diverse Housing Options for the Community
• We Value a Diverse, Equitable, and Inclusive Community
• As a community of diverse individuals with diverse abilities and resources, you should
understand that people will generally maintain their homes/properties to the best of their
abilities. If there is a property with issues, the city and the neighborhood would be well advised
to assume the best rather than the worst and to make every attempt to assist the owner in
bringing the property into a safe state. The community and the City would be far better served
by working together than by creating an adversarial governmental organization that will further
divide the community.. "
• The rental situation in Ames is disgusting and discriminatory. Nothing is done to help tenants
because of the idea that they're all college students, when in fact many work here in Ames. That
includes families. It shows the city council only values homeowners. The lack of affordable
housing and any support or protection of tenants only shows this town values landlords over the
poor people who live and work here. It is racist, ableist, and classist.
• Item 6 needs more consideration to ensure that the city-endorsed gardening activities in ROW
remain allowed.
• "I am happy to discuss the things I have commented on further. I have been a resident of Ames
for 26 years, and I am a landscape architect who teaches at ISU. I am very concerned (see
above) that some of these proposed rules are well-intended but very destructive of
environmental quality.
• For some of these proposed rules, I encourage the City Council to look at particular places and
consider the effects of enforcing the rules. I am happy to suggest places to do this.
• More generally, I encourage the city to tailor rules concerning obstructive vegetation (sidewalks
and streets) to minimum-necessary limits, and not the overly-generous limits codified by traffic
engineers. In my experience, traffic engineers and civil engineers will always sacrifice
environmental quality (for people, wildlife, and ecological health) in order to achieve some
maximalist safety standard.
• Again, happy to provide more feedback as needed, or to suggest alternatives to some of these
proposed rules.
• "Rules are very hard to change and limit the creative potential of Ames residents. All rules that
are adopted should be minimally invasive to insure the wellbeing and freedom of all the
complex stakeholders of Ames.
• As the natural areas of Iowa and the world at large are becoming increasingly diminished, I think
towns and cities can play an important role in preserving biodiversity by allowing more and
greater diversity of life to thrive but only if overly-restrictive and non data driven policies are not
adopted. "
• I do not feel that any of these rules would enhancing living in Ames. All this would do would be
to encourage neighbors to run to the city for fines to other property owners instead of checking
in with people who might have legitimate health reasons to not maintain property. If an elderly
person is mobility impaired and cannot afford lawn care, all this would do is shame and fine that
person rather than helping.
• Develop or advertise an app or website, that homeowners can anonymously report violations in
their neighborhoods.
• "Visibility regulations. Who to contact ?
• For many years, there has been Visibility issues at 6th Street and Brookridge. Hedges grow on
both sides of the property. They grow against the sidewalk, not on the parking, but they block
the view of drivers and bicyclists that are westbound on 6th Street and southbound on
Brookridge."
• Some of this is fine and some of this is just nit picking. If my property is clean and not a hazard
to the neighborhood then it shouldn't matter. I get why they are purposed but I worry it's just
gonna be used to justify fining and ticketing well meaning residents because their neighbors
don't like them. Ames is not a home owners association and shouldn't be treated like one. Do
something about the landlords who don't maintain their rentals instead of home owners.
• This is a terrible idea that does not take into account anyone but those who have the
expendable funding to be able to make cosmetic house repairs as the city deems necessary.
Ames is already incredibly overpriced for what it is, and this type of policy will create a further
economic divide by forcing out residents who can already barely afford to live here in the first
place. This essentially creates an HOA when many people actively try to avoid moving into areas
where those exist, and I don't feel it's the government's place to be interfering in this way. I
don't even own a home in Ames but will definitely think twice about ever buying one if anything
like this passes.
• This sounds like a drastic overreach by a city that needs to focus on upgrading infrastructure.
There are many examples in this bill that would create the feeling of a Home Owners
Association and breed pettiness amongst neighbors. To critique and fine people for not living
up to another's standards is insane. There is a lot of subjective language used in many of the
items. I feel this bill could make this city less friendly and less desirable to anyone who may
consider moving here. Shame on the board for even considering such a thing seriously.
• This is such a very bad idea. A city should not be an HOA.
• "The city has more important issues to address. For those living in older, more established areas
of Ames, these proposed revisions look like they were composed by someone who lives in
Somerset or other newly developed Ames neighborhoods.
• A majority if these are basically saying: poor handicapped elderly people get out of our city and
good riddance to you. I don’t think that’s a good message for Ames and its pride in celebrating
diversity. Maybe you should look at providing services instead of restrictive punitive mandates
that only hurt specific segments of the population that are already underrepresented? Who is
likely to be poorest here? Single women and mothers and racial minorities. Regardless, these
policies are absurdly classist.
• This is a waste of time and money. As private property owners if we are not harming others or
creating a dangerous situations we should be left alone.
• I am so pleased with the proposal. Homeowners should be held responsible for maintaining
their property and keeping the neighborhood safe. Thank you for your efforts.
• I disagree with the need for code changes. Large portions of the city are already in HOA
neighborhoods. This is something the city doesn't need to get involved in unless there is actual
threat of harm. If the city is going to spend money dealing with these issues then put money
towards helping those who need assistance.
• Property owners already have the opportunity to form or join a homeowners association, which
is the most appropriate organization for addressing most of the issues raised in this ordinance.
To apply all of these standards universally to the city of Ames and have a regulatory board
making sometimes arbitrary assessments as to whether an infraction has occurred is a prime
example of government overreach. Only issues of true public safety (not asthetics) should be
addressed by these types of ordinances.
• I generally understand why these codes are in place; however, in practice, if not carefully
drafted, they will penalize people who are already struggling. Some are fodder for neighbor-
neighbor fights, others are difficult for those that are struggling to care for themselves to also
accomplish. There should be a program to assist those that need it, and thought should be given
to what is actually a clear hazard, what is a presumed hazard, and what is considered aesthetic
issues. Just because someone doesn't like the look of something, doesn't make it "wrong".
• This is basically an HOA and doesn’t actually help homeowners. I don’t want this. Also rental
units should be held to the highest of standards of appearance. If you own your property, you
are there to live your life and are contributing to your community. If you are a rental property
owner, you are there and own your property to profit off of the community so it should look
nice to support the community. Also many rental property owners do not even live or have ties
to this state besides owning property here to profit from. I think businesses should also have a
nice appearance if they are owned because they are there to profit off of the community...but
often times business owners are also renting so that is complicated.
• Whatever makes our community beautiful, raises our quality of life.
• While the intent behind these proposals is reasonable, the city council is proposing to become
an HOA, with all of the inherent socioeconomic discrimination that entails. This is a dangerous
road to go down, and will open the city to liability issues for failing to uphold the code
consistently in all neighborhoods and across all demographics.
• "Perhaps time would be better spent creating the PROPERTY MAINTANCE APPEAL BOARD to
enforce the codes already in place. We have a GROSS amount of rental properties in this city, of
which you continue to allow grow. Your last proposal to restrict rentals to 25% did not work as
you allowed the landlords and area real estate agencies to bully you.
• I can give you many perfect examples of current municipal codes not being enforced. Come to
the West neighborhoods off Idaho, Florida, etc... and that is just 1 area. There are many near
downtown. I myself have looked up the properties in question and they are ALL rental
properties.
• You are leaving yourself open to MANY appeals as your definitions are vague. Example: What if
my trim is in need of painting? It is not rotting, no holes. The rest of my property is maintained
and acceptable as I am a RESPONSIBLE homeowner and I am deciding when I want to do the
trim and getting bids. Who are you to say I need to paint my trim NOW if it posses no risk to my
structure and is not an eye-sore?
• Please do not let this become a ""punish the many due to the few"" situation because you aren't
enforcing municipal codes already created. "
• "I simply can not express my dismay with many of these codes. .I understand that these may
have been based on what is in the rental code but landlords and developers are not the same as
homeowners. I do not see why we would be held to similar standards. I would support some of
the code items being removed from the rental codes as I think it might be nice if renters could
use the right of way to grown food instead of turf. I believe many of these new code items will
adversely affect lower income home owners.
• Many of the vegetation requirements promote the use of turf over natives. In a city that is
working on being a leader in good environmental policy, I am baffled as to why turf which
typically uses too many chemicals and gas mowers for maintenance is being favored on native
vegetation."
• In my block, there are 4 houses facing the street. Two of them are long-term unoccupied. One is
an abandoned rental that is in poor condition with overgrown and dead landscaping and junk
vehicles clogging the parking - also an abandoned large dumpster. The other unoccupied house
is owned by a private individual who lives elsewhere. The house is in bad need of paint and has
maintenance issues that are not being addressed. I understand individual property rights - but
these properties are a disgrace and affect the whole neighborhood. I would like it if the city
could provide some enforcement to get these property owners to take some positive action.
• As an individual well educated in civic government and public issues many of these issues go
both ways where if an expectation is going to be made there needs to be a way for citizens to do
so with reasonable assistance and cooperation from both parties. As it is presented this appears
to simply be a list of unenforceable rules which historically will widen economic disparities and
unintentionally penalize minorities. In the long run this could also weak the economic prospects
of Ames as individuals choose to rent instead of buying. Ames already has a documented issue
with affordable single family housing these will only worsen this issue unless assistance is
available and publicized to address this exterior property issues.
• Don’t tread on me!
• Don't turn Ames into one large overbearing HOA. People should be allowed to have different
kinds of yards and lifestyles.
• The city of Ames needs to make up it's mind...do you want to be a welcoming and inclusive
community that cares about ALL of it's residence, or do you want to be an uppity, conservative,
overreaching city government that only cares about appearance and those already privileged.
• "I think we need to see proof that these things actually lower neighboring property values to
justify a lot of this. Also, you will note that lower income neighborhoods have more of these
“violations”, so it might have more to do with poverty vs privilege than anything else. If
someone isn’t maintaining their property, why not check on why first? Are they elderly? Are
they disabled? Are they suffering from depression? Are they going through a temporary but
difficult moment? They very likely may be going through something that makes it difficult to
perform or afford the needed maintenance or repair, so finding them or doing it anyway and
billing them for it could result in serious hardship. It might be better to make a program that
allows for needy people to access help with maintenance or repairs at an affordable cost, for the
mutual benefit of the neighborhood if this is really about safety and property values.
• I think that if these things, when taken individually, do not pose a PROVABLE safety hazard (not
speculative, such as fugitives might hide in the peony bush if it’s higher than twelve inches) or a
PROVABLE loss in value to neighboring properties, they don’t need to go on this list. Also, many
of the chemicals used on a grass lawn are proven to be harmful to humans, animals, and the
environment but I note the absence of any concern for lawn chemicals in this list, in spite of the
fact that these chemicals do drift onto neighboring properties as well as running off the lawns
and into our waterways, causing documented harm. And graffiti can be art and not vandalism
depending on context. This list is in defense of a very particular, privileged, culturally white
aesthetic and it isn’t ok.
• We do have neighborhoods with HOA’s that cover a lot of this aesthetic stuff. But people in
neighborhoods without HOA’s should respect individual property rights, and those rights should
be protected by the city of Ames."
• Some of these are reasonable, but many are over-reaching. Council should seriously consider
the impact these rules would have on people who are disabled, elderly, or low income.
• "I encourage you to cater less to people concerned about property values and ""keeping up
appearances"" and instead take a leadership role in progressing what's ethically right: protecting
safety of residents (including kids and animals), which means restricting use of pesticides and
herbicides as well as incentivizing rain gardens, pollinator friendly plants, and food gardens, as
well as reducing turf grass.
• Not everyone can afford or has the physical ability to be on their property 24/7 performing
maintenance, or pay someone to do so. Do not codify these elitist and ableist mandates. "
• I live next door to the unmaintained property on the 1200 block of northwestern and can attest
to the issues raised by the overgrowth of vegetation and influx of vermin.
• Did someone decide they hated poor and handicapped people and wanted to make their
difficult lives even harder? This has whiny tim gartin all over it.
• "Many of these proposals seem designed to turn all of Ames into manicured turfgrass.
Landscaping other than grass--whether it is rain gardens, pollinator gardens, vegetable gardens,
or shrubbery--retains water from runoff far better than grass. So why legislate against
foundation plantings or plantings in the ROW? Note that many ROW plantings (peony bushes,
flowers, etc.) exceed the 12-inch limit with absolutely no negative impact on visibilty.
• Most of these proposals will only be enforced if a neighbor complains. Again, this places an
unfair burden on homeowners who live near vocal complainers. Is the city prepared to enforce
these ordinances by patrolling the streets and noting all foundation plantings that someone
could hide behind? If not, the ordinances should not pass.
• All ordinances need to be objective and measurable. ""Prohibit graffiti"" leaves the definition of
graffiti up to interpretation; will they be dictating house color next. ""require the exterior of
structures to be maintained"" is completely subjective. Vegetation that would provide
""concealment for criminals"" is not a measurable standard. Is this based on height? density?
Something else? It sounds like all shrubs to me. ""Vermin"" also need to be defined: is this
native wildlife, garter snakes, rats, cicadas, rabbits?
• All in all, these ordinances sound like the city wants to establish far too much oversight over
private property. Basic safety standards are one thing but these far exceed such standards. I
chose to purchase a home outside of a HOA because I abhor them. Do not turn the city into a
HOA.
• "Flower beds, bushes and other vegetation look pretty, and help collect rainwater into the soil,
instead of just having it run off into the sewers. Whoever put this proposed maintenance code
together seems to be opposed to any vegetation other than grass, and that must be kept
mowed all the time. Are you really going to have everyone rip out all their flowers in front of the
house? That would be a big loss for the community.
• There are a lot of fuzzy terms in this proposal. For example, a weed is defined as ""any plant that
showed up on its own and grows vigorously"". We had some volunteer tomatoes in our back
yard for a couple of years, probably from seeds spread by birds. Are they considered weeds?
• What is ""vermin""? We have chipmunks in our back yard. Are those ""vermin"" that need to be
exterminated?
• Who decides whether some bushes are considered overgrown or not? "
• What realtor is pressuring you to do this?
• If people want something like this, they can live in a neighborhood with an HOA. You are going
to cause real problems for low and middle-income folks who are just struggling to get by, living
from paycheck-to-paycheck, ESPECIALLY as we are just starting to recover from a pandemic.
Instead of punishment, why don't you come up with some programs to HELP your residents??? I
own my house. You should not have the right to dictate anything that does not affect PUBLIC
SAFETY. You are going to hurt people by handling these issues in this way. Figure something out
that is POSITIVE instead of a punishment. DO BETTER.
• I love Ames and want it to be striving to be a community of the future. Many of these ideas
seem outdated and not forward thinking. I would like the city to focus on quality of life and
living environments and not just on surface level looks. A house with a uniform green turf lawn
is a compete failed environment causing damage to the City as a whole, causing stress to the
home owner, and damaging our water systems, it is time to move on from that idea. The
concept is now pushed and marketed from companies wanting us to waste our money buying
unnecessary chemicals and machines and burning more fossil fuels. Stop giving into the pressure
and marketing. Start supporting land stewardship and let’s bring healthy environments back.
Clean water, fresh air, happy bird calls, food for our families. Create measures to help us achieve
those goals.
• Are trees taller than 12” to be removed from right-of-ways? This seems unreasonable.
• Most of these items seem to be proposals in search of problems. How often do these problems
even get reported? The city should only focus on the most critical, and honestly only the ones
that impact public health and or public spaces like sidewalks and streets.
• I strongly believe that Ames should embrace a minimum set of code requirements for owner-
occupied properties. I believe rental properties need stronger regulation to be sure that the
non-resident owner is ensuring and providing a healthy and safe living unit for both the
neighborhood and renters. I think there are valid justifications for code requirements for owner-
occupied properties when conditions affect the public health or public safety and the
connection between the code and public health or public safety is clear. Having extensive code
requirements beyond public health and safety does not promote harmonious neighborhoods or
tolerance of individual differences in home maintenance. Extensive code requirements could
permit disgruntled neighbors to use city code and city employees to impose their wishes upon
neighbors. What is considered aesthetic is not the same for all! It has been fashionable lately in
Iowa to pass new rules for the whole state to follow the dictates of the legislature. Please don't
enact new regulations in Ames by making all residents follow the desires of some city officials,
some homeowners or even some Real Estate companies.
• "This is absolutely an attempt to attack students and the working poor in this city. You are
solving problems that don’t really exist and don’t seem to have an issue with the majority of the
landowners in this city continuing to damage it by overcharging the students and providing
terrible living conditions.
• If this goes through I will make sure to work to remove every city council member that voted for
it. "
• "The proposed ordinances will disproportionately impact lower income families as well as our
elderly residents and those with mobility issues. Many of the proposed ordinances can be costly
to fix and forcing residents to fix things before they can afford to or be faced with a fine and
possibly a much larger bill from the city will create a losing situation for all parties involved:
lower income residents will be unable to pay these bills and the city will be spending time and
money that they may never get back.
• Furthermore, these proposed ordinances will turn neighbor against neighbor. After seeing this
proposal posted to the city’s Facebook page, I started to look through the comments to get a
feel for how others felt. I was disappointed to see all the shaming of our neighbors that was
happening, both from the city (who openly posted photos of actual houses in Ames) as well as
residents who were openly posting pictures of their neighbors as well as their address to
publicly shame them. This is not how you create a community.
• Instead of shaming people publicly and slapping them with fines they may not be able to afford,
why not create a program that offers resources to help residents (if they want help) to beautify
Ames. I feel that this would be a better use of the city’s time and resources and would help build
our community."
• "The proposed ordinances will disproportionately impact lower income families as well as our
elderly residents and those with mobility issues. Many of the proposed ordinances can be costly
to fix and forcing residents to fix things before they can afford to or be faced with a fine and
possibly a much larger bill from the city will create a losing situation for all parties involved:
lower income residents will be unable to pay these bills and the city will be spending time and
money that they may never get back.
• Furthermore, these proposed ordinances will turn neighbor against neighbor. After seeing this
proposal posted to the city’s Facebook page, I started to look through the comments to get a
feel for how others felt. I was disappointed to see all the shaming of our neighbors that was
happening, both from the city (who openly posted photos of actual houses in Ames) as well as
residents who were openly posting pictures of their neighbors as well as their address to
publicly shame them. This is not how you create a community.
• Instead of shaming people publicly and slapping them with fines they may not be able to afford,
why not create a program that offers resources to help residents (if they want help) to beautify
Ames. I feel that this would be a better use of the city’s time and resources and would help build
our community."
• "We bought a home in an area that does not have a Homeowners Association. I don't think the
city should take on that responsibility. We have a lovely neighborhood. Not all of the yards are
perfectly groomed because some don't have the physical ability to do it themselves or the
money to hire someone. We mow the lawn for a neighbor who is in that situation.
• I realize that there are some homes in Ames that are a problem but unless it is a safety issue for
the general public, I think it should be left as the responsibility of the homeowner. "
• Most of this seems completely unnecessary
• This is a horrendous over-reach of people who think they should tell others how to live. I
wouldn't be surprised to find some of these violate the First Amendment for freedom of
expression. At the very least its people too preoccupied with how other's are living. Stop this
bullshit.
• What a joke. Laughably ridiculous that you think you can enforce these ill-defined and poorly
thought-out regulations across the entire city of Ames.
• This ableism is not ok. Why hurt instead of help
• We pay almost $4000 per year in property taxes, a number which goes up yearly. I think the
council should be very careful about creating enemies of Ames citizens by trying to create laws
that are not needed or require the creation of special boards to referee disputes. Also, the
question comes about who can report their neighbors and whether this will create its own set of
problems, all in the name of preserving property values.
• "I think some ordinances are okay so as to ensure that the City doesn't look run down. However,
highly specified and restrictive residential ordinances can disproportionately affect people of
limited income and/or limited mobility (hence why their properties might be deemed unsightly
by some people), and can be used by people to punish neighbors they may not like. So, what will
the City do to limit this potential?
• Also, it is understandable to want a uniform appearance and upkeep code to be established for
rental units, commercial properties, and owner-occupied houses. I think this is a mistake - rental
units constitute a form of commercial property, are business-related, and by definition,
occupied by someone other than the landowner, often with high turn-over. There is a much
greater tendency for rental properties to become community eyesores than single owner-
occupied dwellings, and frankly, because of the high housing demand in Ames, lack of incentive
for landlords to keep them clean and in good shape (they have somewhat of a captured market).
• Finally, why is the City focusing on this when much more pressing issues like traffic safety along
the entire length of Lincoln Way (not just in Campus Town), or the continued decay in
appearance of Campus Town haven't been addressed?
• Addressing these two issues would go a long way toward improving the City's livability and
attractiveness to new residents. Also, it seems that the City should work to strengthen and
enforce existing commercial property ordinances before focusing on expanding residential
ordinances. "
• This only seems like ways for wealthier citizens to harass poorer citizens, like a city wide home
owner's association. I would have no problem with these being enforced for landlords, but
individual owners would only be harmed by this.
• Ridiculous
• This proposal reads like the wishlist of retired Boomer busybodies with too much time on their
hands and a burning need to enforce their aesthetics on their neighbors. If I wanted to live in an
HOA, I would have bought my house in a neighborhood with one. While some of these
elements are legitimate health and safety concerns, the majority are arbitrary judgements that
seem to come from someone who's upset that his neighbors aren't landscaping their yards to
his satisfaction.
• A handful of homes and at least one building in our neighborhood (sunrise district) are clearly
beyond repair and vacant. These homes serve no purpose other than to detract from the value
of surrounding homes and pose a potential fire/health risk. I do not support over-enforced rules
that put further stress on folks whose homes need a bit of work, but I see no reason why
decrepit homes should remain standing for years. I think the Appeal Board may be a good way
to identify structures that are beyond repair.
• This feels like an incredible overreach on the part of the city. I have avoided living anywhere
with an HOA on purpose but this feels like the establishment of a city-wide HOA. Considering
the many complaints about the unfair practices of many Ames landlords, I am not really
concerned about their feelings of being unfairly treated. If a homeowner has a problem with a
neighbor it needs to be addressed on a one-to-one basis and not by creating a blanket of
authoritarian and repressive homeowner laws..
• What will be the fiscal costs to the city for expanded enforcement of these laws?
• I disagree with landlords and property managers believing they are being held to higher
standards than homeowners. The rental property behind our house lost several trees in the
derecho and it took them over a month to remove the trees. Garlic mustard grows on the
property as well. My friend lives in Somerset and the surrounding rental townhomes'
microyards are full of giant mulberry and thistles. Yesterday while driving home, I noticed HUGE
patches of thistles on the ROW on Mortensen along the cross country course that will likely
bloom within another day or two (I know this isn't a rental issue, but it indicates that the city
definitely has some yardwork of its own to tackle). I find a lot of these proposed ordinances to
be unnecessary at best and classist/ablist at worst. While I agree that homeowners should take
pride in their property and maintain their structures and yards, I also don't think that a city
should be able to strictly dictate the definition of maintenance. Do my neighbors occasionally
have a trashcan out for a couple of days? Yes. Do I skip mowing the turf because it is a low
priority in my shaded front yard? Yes. Do 8 of the 13 houses on my cul de sac have at least one
car parked on the street? Yes. If these things bothered me to, I would move to a neighborhood
with an HOA. I think that Ames is a friendly city that has room for HOAs and regular
neighborhoods who aren't given a list of standards to uphold.
• These standards do not seem to be equitable. Persons with marginalized income, physical or
intellectual disabilities, and elderly persons may not be able to meet these standards. These
standards seem more suited for an HOA agreement.
• Adopting the requirements and enforcement of the Rental Maintenance Code for individual
homeowners is neither appropriate or useful. The Rental Maintenance Code was designed to
protect tenants from substandard properties, especially since tenants have little leverage to
create change in their living environment as it may relate to things such as structural conditions,
pests, safety of entrances and exits, etc. In contrast, these ordinances seem geared to punish
homeowners by requiring everyone to adhere to a narrow, privileged, and culturally limited
aesthetic. That the enforcement of these codes will disproportionately impact those who are
poor, disabled, elderly, or facing hardship further speaks to an ethic of punishment over
protection.
• As mentioned in the comments above, it appears this will introduce significant enforcement
costs while not being balanced with increased revenue. Even if fines and liens are put in place,
collection of these fines could take months or years to collect. This raises the potential of
incentivizing fines, resulting in more costs to homeowners in order to pay for the enforcement
of these codes. These fines will also disproportionately affect low-income individuals as the
fines will entail a larger percentage of their income.
• There is little attention to ecology or sustainability within these codes. As currently stated, the
codes would undercut efforts to convert spaces to pollinator/native plantings over turf grass.
Moreover, these codes, while purporting to be about safety, don’t address other potential
safety hazards such as the spraying of lawn chemicals that are unsafe for children, pets, and
wildlife and drift from one yard to the next. This also reveals a narrow definition and
perspective on public safety and aesthetics that appears to undergird these proposals.
• These codes could easily be weaponized within residential neighborhoods. Someone with a
grudge or even a different aesthetic than a neighbor can create a huge amount of work and
strife for both the city and their neighbors.
• This proposal is outrageous. Property values are higher in Ames than any other surrounding
community, and rental property owners are more likely to neglect the condition of the property
than owner occupied residences. Rental property owners are also using the property to
generate income and should therefore be held to a higher standard when that standard incurs
cost to the owner. I appreciate the city’s willingness to fairly and equally consider the
complaints and requests of all residents but in this case I strongly disapprove of any time, effort
and expense incurred by attempting to enforce such legislation.
• "I agree that people need to do a better job of managing the exterior of their property. People
may not have skills or tools to cut trees, identify weeds, etc. At the same time we want people
to be more environmentally friendly by planting more natives that could be deemed
""eyesores"" because they can look weedy. Overall, the concepts are probably a good idea.
• It would be nice to balance the stick with some carrots, such as cost share for sidewalk repair,
tree removal, house painting/maintenance, and educational sessions on yard maintenance. "
• This seems unnecessary and like a way for neighbors to judge each other’s property.
• These ordinances are really disappointing. It seems like the city wants to police how people use
their properties under the guise of safety, but most of these are just someone's opinion about
what looks good to them.
• All residents value different things. A healthy community respects that. Please don't go
overboard with imposing one person's standards or abilities on another.
• I don't approve of any of this. Mind your own business. Don't waste my money enforcing these
idiotic ordinances.