Change In City Code example essay topic

This review pertains to the planned change of a 1909 law in Palmyra, New York, which bills itself, "one of the friendliest spots on Earth" that forbids public spitting. The change in city code would increase the possible fine for those convicted of this offense from $2 to $50 currently, to $250 and adding jail time of up to 15 days to the sentence. Arguments in favor of the changes to the ordinance: 1. The city of Palmyra has a right to protect its citizens from what it believes to be harmful to society as a whole and to promote the betterment of the community. Mayor Vicky Daly believes that in changing this ordinance, "we " re trying to have Palmyra be a pleasant place, and we don't want people to spit". 2.

The reason behind the increase of the sentence for those convicted of this crime was a recent review of many ordinances on the books. The city council in increasing the to the fine and adding jail time was merely an attempt to bring a law written in 1909 up to the standards of 2003. In June they reviewed hundreds of codes, and decided on the increase to this ordinance quickly, moving on to other issues. The intent is to make this law up-to-speed with current times. 3. While probably intended to prevent tuberculosis in unsanitary Victorian times, this law could help to stop the spread of contagious diseases.

While tuberculosis is no longer a threat, the possibility of SARS is out there. Palmyra is only trying to prevent was it sees as a potential health issue. Arguments against the new change to the ordinance: 1. While other cities across the country are trying to enact laws that restrict smoking, noise and cellular phone use, Palmyra is changing one that prevents spitting. While legal reforms are working to get extinct laws of the books, here an outdated one is being given new life. Citizens think this law is making a mockery of their town.

If regal reforms are to succeed, laws like this must not remain on the books. 2. In the past 6 years, a police officer Robert Grier has not once charged anyone with the breaking the present ordinance. He says, "It's going to be an impossible law to enforce. I'm sure there are many unenforceable laws".

Why have a law on the books that cannot be enforced? 3. Until there is proof that spitting is the cause of SARS, there is no real danger in restricting public spitting. Health conditions now are much better than the times in which this law was written, and until there is proof of otherwise, there is no need for this outdated law. Conclusion: While the law's intent is for the betterment of the community and most people agree that public spitting is unpleasant and unsanitary, it is not unhealthy.

Until there is valid reason to restrict something so hard to prevent, a law that is virtually unenforceable is completely frivolous. Without valid reason and means of enforcement this ordinance is a waste of paper it's written on.