RIVER FALLS – River Falls resident Dana Linscott didn’t mince words at the July 11 River Falls City Council meeting when expressing his disdain for a newly passed ordinance prohibiting …
This item is available in full to subscribers.
To continue reading, you will need to either log in, using the login form, below, or purchase a new subscription.
If you are a current print subscriber, you can set up a free website account and connect your subscription to it by clicking here.
Otherwise, click here to view your options for subscribing.
Please log in to continue |
RIVER FALLS – Town of Clifton resident Dana Linscott didn’t mince words at the July 11 River Falls City Council meeting when expressing his disdain for a newly passed ordinance prohibiting camping on public property.
The ordinance, passed by the council in June, prohibits camping on any city-owned property, except the campground, which is marked for overnight campers. The ordinance defines camping as setting up or remaining in or at a campsite. A campsite is defined as “any place where any bedding, sleeping bag or other sleeping materials are placed, established or maintained, regardless of whether such place incorporates the use of any tent, lean-to, shack or any other structure, or any vehicle or part thereof.”
Linscott, who has advocated for the city’s homeless population at previous city council meetings, called the ordinance “anti-homeless” and unconstitutional.
“It is actually an anti-sleeping policy and I was led to understand that Mr. Gerhardt (city attorney) drafted this,” Linscott said. “You can’t target people with an unconstitutional law.”
He claimed that Police Chief Gordon Young refuses to answer his questions and has directed his officers not to speak to Linscott as well.
“Mostly this has been used to threaten homeless people, to get them outside the city limits, which is traditionally what small towns have done,” Linscott said.
He said the fine, which is over $100, is ridiculous considering people who have to sleep in their car or a tent can’t afford it.
“It’s inhumane and immoral,” he said.
Electronic signs
The council voted unanimously (minus Alderperson Nick Carow, who was absent) to approve a zoning ordinance text amendment regarding electronic signs. According to a city memo, the amendment will allow for greater use of existing technology available for electronic signs where those signs are currently allowed. It will also provide a process and standards for a billboard to change from static to electronic (or building a new digital billboard) and allow electronic message signs on properties in non-commercial zoning districts such as churches, hospitals and schools.
City staff have received inquiries from multiple businesses wanting more flexibility in electronic reader board sign regulations, especially related to the requirement that only amber or red messaging be used. Several churches have also expressed interest in using electronic signs. The city also received a request from the owner of the Highway 35 billboards east of Whitetail Ridge Corporate Park to convert one or more of the existing signs into digital billboards.
Other business