Re: Good Neighbor Agreement
toggle quoted messageShow quoted text
I admit a GNA is problematic to enforce But the effort Has to be made. This not only is intended to protect the city and/or The neighborhood but also it’s there to protect the residence of a sanction camp.
No one wants to find themselves on the business end of litigation. The one thing I did not put in to the GNA for the now closed Forgotten Realms was an Agreement that the sanction campaign would have liability insurance. The city did not require it and now they are in litigation over the Coleman stove explosion which was not the person‘s fault. She had fired up that Stove many times with out an issue. It cost her and her husband everything they owned and even took the life of their little dog.
It wasn’t the first GNA I created and others have been in place and have been successful but unfortunately it was the campers themselves that violated not only the Good Neighbor Agreement but the Code of Conduct before the ink had dried so it’s imperative that it be enforced. Businesses coming into a neighborhood I have been successful in convincing the surrounding neighborhood that they would be good stewards and that was promised on a GNA.
On Sat, Sep 26, 2020 at 9:17 AM Linda Witt <linda.witt@...> wrote:
The GNAs are a valiant effort but in my limited experience they have been unenforceable. There was an official GNA for the Harbor of Hope site on Naito Pkwy which promised there would be no loitering and camping around the facility. The camping happened anyway and when I asked TP about the GNA they said it wasn't enforceable.