Shaffer: No firings yet over city’s lack of enforcement of GOAT-related ordinance

Letters to the Editor do not reflect the opinions of The Reporter, its publisher or its staff. You can submit your own Letter to the Editor by email to News@ReadTheReporter.com.


Dear Editor:

Carmel’s city council – privy council to the mayor – on Monday became the privy council, coming down hard on anyone crass enough to use public streets and sidewalks as open-air rest rooms.

While such acts have been illegal since the invention of the flush-type toilet, the Carmel police had to catch the beast in the ungracious act. Now, a simple cell phone video will do the trick and the Keystone (and other streets) Kops can descend in force.

The public fouling ordinance passed its first reading but is a mere sideshow to the crudities that gave rise to a need for it.

The GOAT has become the epicenter of bad municipal practice, replacing a breakfast-and-lunch spot as a late-night watering hole for those practicing little if any face mask or social distance obligations. The mayor himself was seen there – mask-less and mingling closely just a few weeks before coming down with COVID-19.

He had formed a task force of like-minded bureaucrats in September to study how the zoning and other regulations allowed the GOAT to graze on the Monon.

Someone discovered the place should be closed at 2 p.m. each day. It was written that way into the original deal. Somebody in City Hall approved the deal and somebody was supposed to enforce deals like this.

No word on how many persons have been fired.

But, it’s nice to know it’s naughty to do one’s business alongside the Monon.

Bill Shaffer

Carmel

1 Comment on "Shaffer: No firings yet over city’s lack of enforcement of GOAT-related ordinance"

  1. Mark Mallare | December 11, 2020 at 8:04 am |

    Actually it can be difficult to prosecute someone for urinating in public if they have a good lawyer.

    A friend was a judge in Indianapolis. He had a public urination case. The lawyer asked the police officer if they actually witnessed the act. The person could just be staring at the wall and just because the area was wet, it could have been caused by something or someone else. The lawyer asked the officer if they could describe the actual act. Was the person circumcised? Etc. You get my point.

    No case.

Comments are closed.