At a city council meeting on Tuesday, council members agreed to update city ordinances to allow for cost recovery in code enforcement cases. The new ordinance aims to help the city recoup expenses for cases involving complex violations and intransigent property owners.
However, the vote was overshadowed by testimony from the city's code enforcement officer, which suggested that enforcement of city codes may not be applied equally. The officer’s comments came after a question from Councilwoman Tess Albin-Smith regarding a prominent "Fort Bragg Forever" sign on the Union Lumber Company Store on Main Street. Albin-Smith inquired whether the sign required a permit.
The officer confirmed the department had received complaints about the sign and others in the central business district but noted the city had adopted a wait-and-see approach. “We need to study it more and come up with a plan,” the officer said, explaining the city's reluctance to provoke local businesses over such complaints.
During the meeting, City Manager Isaac Whippy clarified the city’s code enforcement is complaint-driven, addressing concerns that the city might be actively seeking out violations. When Councilman Lindy Peters pressed further about the store’s non-permitted sign, Code Enforcement Officer George Leinen admitted there was no immediate plan to enforce the violation.
Peters pointed out that, per city regulations, the store should have obtained a permit for the sign, asking, "Wouldn’t you have to get a permit for a temporary 30- or 60-day sign?"
Leinin confirmed that the store had not acquired a permit, and he encouraged additional citizens to file complaints to prompt further action.
The discussion prompted concerns about selective enforcement, raising issues of fairness and equal treatment. A public commenter questioned the city's choice to delay action on the sign despite the apparent violation, suggesting that such discretion could be interpreted as unequal enforcement under the law.
City Attorney intervened to clarify that the meeting was not the appropriate venue to discuss specific properties or make allegations. Instead, the purpose was to approve the ordinance for cost recovery.
