Ordinance 72.16: A Deep Dive into Its Origins, Passage, and Enforcement

Published: October 23, 2024

Introduction

Ordinance 72.16, passed in Harker Heights, prohibits parking on unapproved surfaces in residential areas. We will walk through the ordinance’s origins, detail key memoranda and attachments obtained through open records requests, and analyze code enforcement data to assess how the ordinance has been implemented. The appendix contains the full text of the ordinance, the complete memoranda, and attachments for reference.

While the city framed the ordinance as a safety measure, focusing on fire hazards, and citizen complaints, this analysis reveals potential aesthetic motivations and HOA influences. Enforcement data from 2022 to 2024 highlights shifting priorities, with an initial spike in violations. However, the ordinance does not address deeper concerns raised by residents, such as vehicle hoarding and visibility hazards, raising questions about whether the city is overstepping by emulating HOA-style rules under the pretext of safety. This article explores the ordinance’s origins, enforcement trends, and broader implications.

1. Background and Key Memorandum

The August 7, 2018, City Council memorandum provides the foundation for Ordinance 72.16. Key points include:

This memorandum gives insight into the city’s stated rationale for passing the ordinance. In the following sections, I will walk through the attachments—such as the citizen complaints, news article, local comparison, and sample fact sheet—and provide relevant excerpts from each.

2. Detailed Review of Attachments

2.1 Citizen Complaints

The August 7, 2018, memorandum states that the issue of parking on unapproved surfaces “came to staff's attention through complaints by citizens.” However, the attached complaints consist of only two submissions—both from the same individual. These complaints paint a detailed picture of a frustrating situation with a neighbor who appears to hoard vehicles. Below is a summary and key excerpts from each complaint.

First Complaint: June 29, 2018

In the first letter, the complainant expressed deep frustration with the city’s inaction, describing an ongoing problem with a neighbor's commercial-style vehicles and dilapidated cars parked throughout the property. The resident was particularly upset that the city had even asked if they could grant a permit for one of the neighbor’s heavy equipment vehicles.

"I would like to personally invite the city manager, code enforcement, city council members, and the mayor to visit me at my home to discuss the ongoing problem with my neighbor."

The complaint highlighted the serious safety concerns caused by the neighbor’s vehicles blocking visibility:

"I cannot see oncoming cars, nor can they see me. I've already been hit once while backing out."

The complainant’s frustration boiled over into a direct challenge to city officials:

"You allow him to repeatedly park vehicles not just in the street, but on the grass along the side of his house that is not his driveway and in the front yard and backyard. You refuse to do anything. I have complained to code enforcement year after year, and nothing happens. Do your jobs."

Second Complaint: July 31, 2018

In the second letter, the resident reiterated his frustrations but expanded on the broader problems caused by living next to what he described as a vehicle hoarder.

"I live next door to a hoarder of vehicles, so I know firsthand the hazards it brings."

The resident emphasized that the neighbor’s hoarding led to health concerns, including issues with mice and mosquitoes, which he was allergic to. He also noted that the vehicles were used to create a wall around the property, making it impossible to see the full extent of the mess.

"It causes major problems with mice for me and mosquitoes that I'm allergic to."

The complainant pointed out inconsistencies in the city’s code enforcement practices. While city ordinances gave officials the right to enter properties to inspect for violations, code enforcement officers told him it was illegal to do so.

"Your very own ordinances state you do have the right to enter any property to inspect for such hazards and ordinances that have been broken. But when I go to code enforcement, I was told that although the ordinances state that, it is actually illegal."

The letter further highlighted the resident’s frustration with the city’s inaction:

"I would gladly move, but who would buy my property at fair value with the hoard next door?"

The resident proposed a “reasonable parking solution:” limiting households to one vehicle per licensed driver, with a clear limit on how many vehicles could be parked on the property or the street.

"If there are four people with a valid driver's license, then each person should be allowed to own one vehicle. They can park two in the driveway with one behind the first one and two in the street. But when you have one person living in the home with a valid driver's license, why should they have 30 vehicles?"

Conclusion from the Complaints

These complaints highlight a legitimate issue that the resident expected the city to address. The complaints document serious safety, visibility, and health concerns. However, Ordinance 72.16, which the city later passed, does not address the core issues raised in these complaints.

The ordinance’s focus on banning parking on grass does little to resolve the deeper problem of vehicle hoarding or enforce compliance in situations like the one described.

2.2 News Article: "Don't Park on the Grass, Local Cities Remind Residents"

The August 7, 2018, memorandum includes a news article titled "Don't Park on the Grass, Local Cities Remind Residents," originally published in Hewitt, Texas. The article highlights statements from city officials in Hewitt and Waco, who frame the fire risks of parking on grass as the primary reason for enforcing these ordinances.

Hewitt Fire Chief Lance Bracco emphasized that parking on grass can create dangerous conditions during dry weather:

"Parking your car on dead grass right now with the dry conditions can create explosive fire conditions. I’ve seen it happen before."

City of Waco spokesman Larry Holtz echoed this sentiment, confirming that parking on grass is a code violation in Waco. Bracco advised residents to park only on asphalt, concrete, or areas without vegetation, stating:

"A catalytic converter can operate over 1,200 degrees and come in contact with dry grass, which can ignite at about 500 degrees. It wouldn’t take very long. You’d have a pretty good-sized grass fire."

However, Texas A&M Forestry Service experts clarify that such fire risks only arise when a vehicle parks on tall, extremely dry, overgrown grass—a scenario far less likely on a typical residential lawn. Despite Bracco’s warnings, there is no documented evidence of residential grass fires caused by parking vehicles on lawns under normal conditions.

Flawed Safety Claims and Comparisons

The Hewitt officials insisted that the ordinance is primarily about safety, although they acknowledged that aesthetics also played a role:

"Although partly for aesthetics and removing eyesores from yards, the law was mostly created for safety reasons," said Chief Bracco.

This mirrors statements made by Harker Heights officials, who similarly denied that aesthetics motivated Ordinance 72.16. However, aesthetics often become an unstated factor in these types of ordinances, even if the official narrative emphasizes safety concerns.

Chief Bracco made further questionable comparisons, warning residents to avoid parking on grass alongside other activities such as barbecuing and mowing during dry conditions:

"Right now, with the dry weather, be very mindful of all ignition sources—barbecue pits, parking cars on the grass, things of that nature. Even while mowing, you could hit a piece of metal."

This comparison stretches credibility, as the likelihood of a vehicle causing a fire by being parked on grass in a typical residential yard is minimal, especially when compared to the open flames of a barbecue pit or mowing.

If parking on the grass is a fire hazard, why not also prohibit mowing?

Enforcement and Police Involvement

The article also highlights Hewitt’s strict enforcement approach. Chief Jim Devlin explained that their code enforcement team actively monitors for ordinance violations, encouraging residents to report violations:

"We just encourage citizens, if they see this, go ahead and call up the police department. We can have code enforcement go out and deal with the issue and get compliance to get the vehicle moved."

This level of police involvement for a parking violation raises questions about the burden placed on residents and the potential overreach of such ordinances. Non-compliant residents face citations and fines, with penalties varying by city.

Conclusion

The inclusion of this article in the August 7, 2018, memorandum reflects the questionable reasoning behind the ordinance. While fire safety is the official justification, the lack of evidence supporting these claims raises doubts about the need for such restrictions.

This inconsistency points to a pattern often seen with similar ordinances: even when aesthetics and neighborhood appearance are driving forces, safety is emphasized as the official justification to secure public support and legal standing.

2.3 Local Comparison Ordinance

The August 7, 2018, memorandum includes a local comparison of parking ordinances from several cities, including Killeen, Temple, Nolanville, Georgetown, Farmers Branch, and Portland, Texas. The full document will be included in the appendix for reference.

Notably, in the City of Georgetown’s ordinance, it explicitly states that residents are prohibited from standing in their own yards under certain conditions. This is particularly striking given that Harker Heights cites these cities as examples to emulate in their own ordinance.

2.4 Sample Fact Sheet from Roseville, California

The memorandum also includes a sample fact sheet from the City of Roseville, California, which outlines the reasoning behind a similar ordinance prohibiting parking on landscaping. Below are key excerpts from the document:

"Why is the city adopting an ordinance to prohibit parking on landscaping? The city frequently receives complaints from residents about vehicles being parked on residential landscapes. In addition, the Roseville Coalition of Neighborhood Associations (RCONA) has identified this issue as an important problem that needs to be addressed."

"In response to these concerns, the city council adopted an amendment to Municipal Code Title XI, Vehicles and Traffic, to prevent the parking of vehicles on unimproved surfaces throughout the city."

This ordinance limits parking on unimproved surfaces, such as lawns, and allows only 50% of the front and side street yard setback areas to be paved for parking.

The fact sheet also explains that large commercial vehicles (weighing over 10,000 pounds) are banned from parking on residential property, citing resident complaints about safety, visual impact, and loading equipment:

"This provision is in response to resident complaints regarding the loading of equipment into commercial vehicles, the size of these vehicles, safety, and the visual impact on the neighborhood."

HOA Influence and Ordinance Adoption

A significant issue with this fact sheet is that it reflects direct involvement from HOAs in shaping local policy. RCONA played a key role in getting the city council to adopt these parking restrictions. This connection suggests that the ordinance was driven by the aesthetic priorities of HOAs rather than community-wide concerns.

This pattern of HOA influence is also apparent in other cities referenced in Harker Heights' local ordinance comparison. Cities such as Nolanville, Killeen, Georgetown, Farmers Branch, and Portland have experienced rapid HOA growth, which has contributed to the adoption of increasingly restrictive regulations.

The issue with this trend is that municipalities, like Harker Heights, seem to be emulating HOA-style rules in an attempt to impose uniformity and aesthetics throughout the city. Local governments lack the legal authority to enforce such restrictive standards on private property. This raises the question of whether the city is overstepping its role by adopting regulations that resemble HOA rules, with the intention of making neighborhoods look more "tidy" and uniform.

3. Analysis of Code Enforcement Data

Between January 1, 2022, and May 1, 2024, Harker Heights code enforcement officers recorded 5,745 actions across various categories. While the data covers a broad range of violations, this analysis focuses on grass parking, heavy vehicle parking, and the “Other” category—which are most relevant to understanding the enforcement of Ordinance 72.16 and related policies.

Key Enforcement Categories and Trends

1. Grass Parking Violations

Grass parking violations increased substantially in 2023, suggesting a significant push to enforce Ordinance 72.16. Although these cases decreased in 2024, the volume indicates sustained efforts to target residents for parking on unimproved surfaces.

2. Heavy Vehicle Parking Violations

Heavy vehicle parking saw a sharp increase in 2023, followed by a complete halt in 2024. This could indicate either increased compliance after enforcement efforts or a shift in code enforcement priorities.

3. Other Violations

The “Other” category initially had a high number of cases in 2022 before dropping sharply in 2023 and then rebounding in 2024. It’s possible that parking-related issues were included under this category during certain periods, adding complexity to tracking specific violations.

Trends and Observations

4. Conclusion

The story behind Ordinance 72.16 reveals a complex interplay between citizen complaints, safety concerns, aesthetic motivations, and enforcement strategies. Although the ordinance was officially framed as a safety measure, the evidence suggests that aesthetic motivations—while denied as a primary factor—may have played a significant role, as reflected in the influence of HOAs on similar ordinances in other cities.

In addition to regulating parking on unapproved surfaces, the city enacted heavy vehicle parking restrictions—which may address legitimate concerns—but Ordinance 72.16 fails to deliver on the core issues raised. Instead of solving the problems of vehicle hoarding, visibility hazards, and health concerns, it broadly bans parking on grass, with the added irony that city vehicles are exempt from these restrictions while residents are prohibited from parking on their own lawns.

The citizen complaints cited as justification for the ordinance focus on serious but isolated concerns involving a single individual’s issues with a neighbor. However, Ordinance 72.16 does little to address these underlying issues. Similarly, the news article included in the August 7, 2018, memorandum relies on unsubstantiated fire hazard claims, which, upon further inspection, do not justify the ordinance's sweeping parking restrictions.

The inclusion of local comparison ordinances from other cities, along with the sample fact sheet from Roseville, California, highlights a troubling trend. Many municipalities have begun adopting HOA-style regulations under the pretext of safety, focusing on uniformity and aesthetics without acknowledging these motivations outright. Harker Heights’ adoption of similar rules raises questions about whether the city is overstepping its role by emulating HOA governance in an attempt to impose aesthetic standards.

The code enforcement data from 2022 to 2024 illustrates the ordinance’s real-world impact. The spike in grass parking violations in 2023 suggests a deliberate push to enforce the ordinance, while the complete absence of heavy vehicle parking violations in 2024 raises questions about changing priorities or improved compliance. The inconsistent trends in the “Other” category further complicate the analysis, hinting that parking violations may have been misclassified or unevenly tracked across years.

Ultimately, Ordinance 72.16 represents a missed opportunity to address residents' real concerns, such as vehicle hoarding and blocked visibility. Instead, the ordinance focuses narrowly on regulating parking surfaces, mirroring HOA-style governance and placing unnecessary burdens on residents while failing to deliver meaningful community benefits. This case underscores the importance of transparency and accountability in local governance, ensuring that ordinances align with the actual needs of the community rather than hidden agendas or aesthetic aspirations.

Check out the appendix for all referenced documents, as well as other public feedback and comments on the Parking in Yards in Residential Areas ordinance.

Appendix: Full Texts and Memoranda

Full Text of Ordinance 72.16

Download the Full Text of Ordinance 72.16

August 7, 2018, Memorandum and Attachments

Heat Maps

Code Enforcement Data

← Back to Articles