City doubts its own interpretation!  
  The fate of the gazebo and carport are contingent on the Treehouse case !!!!
Here is the Proof...		  
       These two letters outline a new city policy to make the fate of the gazebo and carport contingent on the Treehouse and show how the city has no faith in their interpretation of the ordinance.  This policy is certainly unethical and possibly illegal*; and it makes the Treehouse owners assume full liability for the contesting of other questionable interpretations. Since the city even doubts their interpretation, it further proves that the ordinance is vague and poorly written.  Instead of simply amending the ordinance to make it clear and concise; they are making the Treehouse owners spend thousands to defend very subjective interpretations that will only result in future confusion.  The fate of the Treehouse may not be fully determined until 2005 or longer**.  Apparently, all permits and interpretations will be on hold for a very long, long time.  Instead of placing old and new construction on hold, why don't they just amend the ordinance and stop the nonsense?  The Treehouse owners should not serve as a test bed or experiment for the city.  If the ordinance is clear, the city should continue its enforcement.  Obviously, the ordinance is not clear.
*The legality is being investigated.  This change in public policy was made in a non-public forum.  The policy applies  to a select group and  is a discriminational.   This policy is not authorized by the ordinance.  This policy is arbitrary, capricious, and unreasonable.
**Due to high number of pending circuit court cases ahead of possible tort reform and the exhaustion of appeals..		  
  The Gazebo was ordered torn down because it was interpreted as an accessory building in the front yard.  The Gazebo's future now depends on the Treehouse decision despite the obvious differences between a Treehouse and a Gazebo.  
   
  Read about the Gazebo in the Clinton News and the Reverend's letter to the editor.  
   
       The city of Clinton wants a carport torn down because it is in the owner's side yard*!  The city has made the carport's fate contingent on the Treehouse.  Gary Ward interprets carports as accessory buildings!  

   This letter was emailed to someone after an interview between Gary Ward and a Clarion Ledger employee.

Unbelievably, the city questions its interpretation and makes the Treehouse owners liable again.
*The side yard ends at the back of the house or ends at the back of the property based on two different interpretations. 		  
 
Clarion Ledger Email
 
       Interviews with the mayor indicate that she also endorses this new policy of unprecedented, delayed enforcement until the treehouse case is decided.  This policy places the full burden on the owners of the treehouse.   A gazebo in the front yard of a lake front home makes sense and is legal!  A Treehouse that blends well with the home and loved by the neigbhorhood makes sense and is legal.  Separate ordinances designed specifically for carports and garages, like in the City of Madison, would make sense.  Whatever happened to common sense leadership?
     The Mayor and board had no problem granting special exceptions to Walmart and Kroger to place gas stations in their front yards.  These businesses were not forced to court.  Why isn't  Alderman Brabham afraid of getting sued if someone gets hurt at these gas stations?   A baseless fear of a lawsuit was his reason to deny conditional use for the Treehouse.  Hmmm!  Why are businesses granted conditional use while families, who truly make communities, are not bestowed the same privilege?		  
   
   
  Read how the City Violates their own Accessory Building Ordinance!