Thoughts on the code

March 30, 2007 11:20 am

— If you haven’t had a chance to check out this week’s Clinton Herald online poll question, take a look. It in essence asks for readers’ thoughts concerning the need for a building code in Clinton, specifically whether it should be put in place locally or be mandated by state lawmakers through proposed legislation. It also asks whether a code is necessary at all.
It will be interesting to see what the results are, because from what we’re hearing for the most part, people support a code but want to make sure it is the right code for Clinton.
Many take offense to the legislation that has been introduced in the state legislature that would, in effect, force cities with a population of more than 15,000 that do not have their own code to utilize the state code.
That would ensure all those cities would have one in place — that specifically means Clinton, which is the only city above the population figure that does not have a building code. Not that we haven’t tried; a building code put before voters was defeated in 2003.
At Tuesday’s Clinton City Council meeting, many people stood up and supported a code, including the city’s fire chief, who says it is necessary to ensure public safety. Councilmen at that time voted 4-1 to ask the state to delay approving the proposed state code so time can be bought to get a code in place at the local level.
That disturbs some, who are afraid the code won’t pass here and that a code’s placement would be delayed.
We have to agree. Yes, it would be nice to have a locally approved code, but it is hard to believe one can be crafted to suit everyone’s desires.
That’s not to say we shouldn’t try it — we should. But to have a drop-dead date put in place by the state legislature would give us the nudge to get it done on our own terms.
And if it doesn’t happen through a local vote, we would still know that a code will be there, in place by mid-2008.