The appeal is online here, as with most legal opinions it is boring, and it splits hairs over what is a "driveway."
It is an unpublished opinion, the city poobahs in closed session can consider whether it was heard in a way that future hearings might avoid, that's called showing a learning curve; and the ordinance may be amended to be less vague and tied not to MUSA boundaries but to neighborhood densities and existing norms on adjacent parcels - again it is splitting hairs on wording and showing a learning curve. What really is the target offense, and how can the ordinance be narrowed to that alone, and not be overbroad to where discretionary enforcement alone stands against too many being in violation for living as many within a local neighborhood have for years, and against people being inordinately cited and fined in these times of fiscal hardship at many levels of government. Good faith would not treat that sort of regulatory ordinance as a municipal cash cow, and so far Ramsey officials have shown good faith in enforcement.
In effect, rewrite the thing to lay off the neighborhoods of large acreage, and the single vehicle in what arguably has been historically at least if not recently, a "driveway" in use for a limited number of licensed and somewhat regularly operated vehicles. And enforcement-wise, don't move against a property without neighboring complaints being lodged first with Ramsey Police. Make enforcement reactive not proactive; do not hunt for situations to cite. Regardless of a particular parcel's history do not target it to apply unreasonable enforcement. Use sensible discretion.
In the Kiefer instance there had been some negotiated property upkeep measures taken, and then closer than average scrutiny, resulting in the litigated dispute. And at hearing, it was stated several times that the historical situation was not at issue, nor relevant to the instance in dispute.
Perhaps, if the history was that the "driveway" use had been abandoned by storage of disabled and non operated vehicles in the immediate past, abated by negotiation, then an argument of driveway abandonment might have been pressed. That choice was surrendered by the City.
Now, if Kiefer is again challenged with his precedent as res judicata between the parties even with the opinion "unpublished" the big questions would be is it harassment and deliberate disrespect for an appellate mandate; while if the City were to think to rehear the earlier situation, now after passage of time, would it be putting the Kiefer owner-occupants in double jeopardy? It is not a criminal ordinance but a regulatory one, so the question would be interesting. Yet, that is scant cause to subject the family to a reenactment of a thing that had to go to the Court of Appeals for decision.
I would hope this new council leaves the past in repose. I think the owner-occupants and the City, and the family's neighbors, have had intervening time without incident. That should weigh in favor of repose and finality of the Court of Appeals thinking.
_________UPDATE________
An email from a reader pointed out coverage of the Kiefer situation, online here, stating:
Kiefer explained the battle had very little to do with his driveway and a lot more to do with principle.
"I like to stand up for my rights and the rights of the little people. In this case, the little guy won against big city government," Kiefer said. "Too many people are rolling over and not holding government accountable for their authority."
The city says this kind of push back on a minor city ordinance is rare. City officials wouldn't detail how much they spent pursuing the case. However, they did note they're debate whether to appeal the latest decision to the Minnesota Supreme Court.
The email was sent Aug. 26, so had I kept up with email account I might have posted about this sooner. I saw it the day before I posted, mayor and council input, in a QCTV council meeting rebroadcast.
It is good to have as much of council activity televised as feasible, as well as to be diligent in reading email.