Revisiting Ordinance 72.16: Unpacking New Evidence and Ongoing Issues

Published: November 17, 2024

Introduction

In my previous article, I delved into the origins of Harker Heights’ Ordinance 72.16, which bans parking on residential lawns. The city justified the ordinance by citing concerns over safety, fire hazards, and water contamination. However, upon closer examination, these claims didn’t hold up. Through open records requests, I uncovered evidence that undermined the city’s rationale and revealed the ordinance as an overreach designed to target specific residents.

Now, with new findings and additional context, it’s time to revisit Ordinance 72.16. This follow-up will explore inconsistencies in citizen complaints, uncover questionable financial motives, and highlight how the ordinance reflects broader issues in local governance.

Timeline of Key Events

2012: The Beginning

The first sign of controversy appeared in an August 2012 article detailing Stormy Gordon’s complaints about her neighbor, Paul Ball. She alleged that Ball’s property was cluttered with junk vehicles that blocked her line of sight and posed health hazards. Despite her claims, another neighbor, Bernice Cochran, countered that Ball’s property was not an eyesore. This disagreement highlights the subjective nature of “safety concerns.”

2014: Paul Ball Loses His Property

By 2014, Paul Ball, an 85-year-old veteran, faced escalating code enforcement actions. After years of fines and legal battles, his property was auctioned off to settle debts—despite his claims of compliance and registered antique vehicles. The city justified their actions with state definitions of “junk vehicles,” but the financial and emotional toll on Ball raises questions about fairness and selective enforcement.

2018: Ordinance 72.16 is Proposed

In August 2018, a memorandum outlined the city’s reasoning for Ordinance 72.16. It included:

Two complaints from Stormy Wells (aka Stormy Gordon), echoing her 2012 grievances.
A news article from Hewitt, TX, claiming that parking on grass was a fire hazard.
Comparisons to other cities, such as Farmers Branch or Portland, and their HOA rules.

Despite this justification, the ordinance disproportionately targeted residents with older property and/or limited financial resources.

2020: Ordinance Finalized Amid Transparency Concerns

Workshops held in February 2019 and August 2020 further discussed the ordinance, but significant gaps in records and transparency remain. My recent open records requests reveal discrepancies in meeting agendas, raising concerns about the city’s process.

New Evidence and Analysis

Stormy Wells’ Inconsistent Complaints

Stormy Wells filed complaints in 2018 about Paul Ball’s property. However, Ball’s property was auctioned in 2014, making it very hard to believe he was even her neighbor at that time. This raises serious questions about the validity of her complaints and the city’s reliance on them.

Additionally, Stormy Wells appeared to say anything necessary to compel the city to enforce arbitrary and potentially unlawful demands against Mr. Ball, even invoking her own son and grandchildren to support her claims.

Hewitt’s Influence and Financial Motives

The Hewitt news article cited fire hazards to justify parking bans. Yet, other articles from the same period reveal Hewitt’s significant spending on a $750,000 radio system, which public safety officials described as their highest priority. This suggests that the “fire hazard” rationale was a smokescreen for revenue generation—an approach Harker Heights appears to have adopted.

Missing Workshop Records

Open records requests uncovered inconsistencies in city council workshop dates. For instance, a workshop allegedly held on February 27, 2019, is referenced but remains undocumented, while a City Council Workshop Agenda from February 19th was sent in its place with no explanation. However, a September 1st, 2020 memorandum from the city clearly states that meetings from August 7th, 2018, and February 27th, 2019, were used. The lack of transparency undermines public trust and raises questions about the ordinance’s true intent.

Bias Against Low-Income Residents

Documents from 2020 explicitly state that the ordinance aimed to “protect aesthetic character” and address “nuisances.” In practice, this language disproportionately targets residents perceived as “poor” based on their vehicles or property conditions, reinforcing class bias.

Questioning the Justifications

Safety Concerns

The city claimed that vehicles on grass pose fire and water contamination risks. However:

There’s no evidence that vehicles on grass cause fires at a higher rate than those on pavement.
Claims of water contamination are speculative at best and not consistently applied to other sources of potential pollutants.

Aesthetic Arguments

Aesthetic concerns are subjective and should not justify ordinances that impose financial burdens on residents or restrictions on how they can use their property. Neighbors like Bernice Cochran didn’t consider Paul Ball’s property an eyesore, highlighting how “aesthetics” is a matter of opinion rather than fact.

Revenue Generation

By emphasizing fines and compliance, the ordinance serves as a revenue stream for the city. The Hewitt example demonstrates how municipalities exploit code enforcement for financial gain under the guise of safety.

The Broader Implications

The story of Ordinance 72.16 is not unique. Across the country, municipalities are using similar tactics to impose restrictive ordinances that disproportionately affect low-income residents. These measures prioritize aesthetics and revenue over individual rights, eroding trust in local government. The case of Paul Ball illustrates the devastating consequences of aggressive code enforcement, while the inconsistencies in Stormy Wells’ complaints highlight the lack of accountability in the process.

Conclusion

Ordinance 72.16 fails to deliver on its stated goals of safety and neighborhood improvement. Instead, it perpetuates inequity, targets vulnerable residents, and prioritizes financial gain over community well-being. The city’s lack of transparency in its workshops and reliance on questionable complaints and nonsensical “news stories” further undermines its legitimacy.

As I continue to uncover new evidence, I encourage residents to demand transparency and accountability from their local government. Stay tuned for updates as I pursue additional records and continue advocating for fairer policies.