Friday, December 6, 2013

Dunwoody Crier celebrates a local home-based business

Wife and mom launches jewelry business with a twist 

(link was to online Crier article that was removed some time on Thursday)

Scan of print article from this week's Crier.
Why did the online article disappear?
I learned about Origami Owl from some sorority sisters who are customers and from other members of home business networking groups.

At its start, Origami Owl began like many Dunwoody home-based businesses:  people looking for some way to make a living from home without getting trapped by a scam and having the flexibility of time to be a full-time parent as well.  Origami Owl is a bit more unique in that it was started by a teenager (at home) rather than an adult.

This enterprise is typical of the hundreds of home businesses in Dunwoody where a parent works from home, sees customers and makes sales in residential neighborhoods, and maintains stock in trade, without a single complaint.  Because of four of our seven city council members, and their blind commitment to excessive permitting processes, these home business owners have decided it is more beneficial to ignore the SLUP process than to obey it.  So we all just go about our business of earning a living and being the good neighbors we always were - without begging the city government for their approval.  

Home business owners have no protection from harassment.  They can be vilified in any public meeting due to the bad behaviour of other residents who are not so conscientious.  Complaints can be filed anonymously, even without cause.  By contrast, the extensively rewritten animal ordinance, (Number 3, under the consent agenda) going to a vote on Monday, requires that complaints against an animal owner require three signatures of residents in three different homes.  Or, some kind of evidence that obtaining three signatures is not possible.

Would someone please demonstrate, using legal precedent, why different code enforcement complaints about different alleged nuisances require such vastly different standards of proof?  This new variation of the animal ordinance offers animal owners additional protections against complaints that any other resident or entity is not entitled to.  Specifically, this is the only "nuisance" that does not allow for anonymous complaints.   You can complain all you want, anonymously, on SeeClickFix about someone's yard not being cut, or the fact that they store their personal belongings in their carport, or they have a large family with many cars legally parked on the property, or accuse them of having a home business, whether they do or not.  Proof is a bonus, but not necessarily required.  But if you want to complain about a nuisance animal, you have to give your name and get other signatures from the neighbors.  In what universe is this fair?

But back to the beginning of the story:  Dunwoody moms and dads are currently working from home by the hundreds.  The overwhelming majority of them are good neighbors providing good services to their community.   No extraneous paperwork required.  The Crier recognized that this week, even if city hall is still foggy on the subject.

No comments: