• Share
  • Email
  • Embed
  • Like
  • Save
  • Private Content
Medrano meeting 4 5-11
 

Medrano meeting 4 5-11

on

  • 561 views

 

Statistics

Views

Total Views
561
Views on SlideShare
557
Embed Views
4

Actions

Likes
0
Downloads
2
Comments
0

1 Embed 4

http://www.slideshare.net 4

Accessibility

Categories

Upload Details

Uploaded via as Adobe PDF

Usage Rights

© All Rights Reserved

Report content

Flagged as inappropriate Flag as inappropriate
Flag as inappropriate

Select your reason for flagging this presentation as inappropriate.

Cancel
  • Full Name Full Name Comment goes here.
    Are you sure you want to
    Your message goes here
    Processing…
Post Comment
Edit your comment

    Medrano meeting 4 5-11 Medrano meeting 4 5-11 Document Transcript

    • MEETING NOTES page 1 of 2Location: Dallas City HallDate: April 5, 2011Prepared by: Nigel BrownSubject: Briefing on Livability in The CedarsRefer to the Agenda (attached) for an outline of the meeting.Michael Barrett presented “From Eyesores to Assets” (attached) regarding efforts inother U.S. cities to address vacant properties. Pauline Medrano noted that manyvacant properties are held by long-term owners who are holding them forspeculation. Many have violations for Code, weeds and trash. She referenced thebook “Eden’s Lost and Found” which addresses efforts to clean up vacantproperties. The suggested strategy is to start with a small area and expand inphases. Pame la Ashford is the umbrella coordinator for this effort.Michael Przekwas presented results of his recent survey regarding quality of life inThe Cedars (attached). The report includes a map of DPD reporting areas withinthe neighborhood. The issues with the most responses include loitering, litter andtruck traffic. Deputy Chief Genovese asked that any reports of truck traffic includethe time of day and the day of the week in addition to the location. MichaelPrzekwas discussed the concept of identifying a “captain” for each reporting area.Some areas in the southwest are predominantly business occupancies and wouldneed businesses to participate. Pauline Medrano pointed out that these areas areadjacent to the Trinity River, including bike trails and the “standing wave”. Theseareas will attract increasing traffic along Riverfront and Corinth.Pauline Medrano and Michael Przekwas commented on prompt response fromOncor regarding repair of streetlights.Michael Barrett spoke about the upcoming neighborhood litter clean-up. PaulineMedrano advised that the City has a list of volunteer organizations that are lookingfor opportunities to participate. She will ask Forest Turner to provide a contact. Inaddition, Keep Dallas Beautiful will provide supplies for the clean-up.Michael Barrett commended the DPD for their strong response to reported crime inthe Ervay Street corridor. He asked about whether this level of enforcement issustainable. Deputy Chief Genovese said that this level of enforcement can bemaintained.Michael Barrett discussed the concept of using electronic funds transfer instead ofcash to pay day-labor workers. Pauline Medrano expressed concern for theworkers who are being preyed upon because they leave work with cash in theirpockets. Is legislation possible? Attorneys will want to know whether this hasbeen done in other cities as a precedent.
    • MEETING NOTES page 2 of 2Lt. King presented a summary of recent police efforts. These include approachingloiterers and frequent drive-bys with a paddy wagon. Recent arrests arepredominantly drug paraphernalia, shopping carts and public intoxication. Veryfew traffic(vehicle) issues. They have also been moving trucks off Cesar Chavezfor overnight parking. Need to engage owners of apartments south of DallasHeritage Village. Pauline Medrano suggested using sky towers on an intermittentbasis for visibility. DART has recently installed cameras at the Cedars light-railstation.Michael Barrett discussed the possibility of a Styrofoam ordinance. This has beendone in other cities (see Freeport, Maine attached). Also discussed that there arefeeding services at multiple locations in the neighborhood, causing a stream ofpeople moving from one location to the next. Discussed the need for feedingorganizations to clean up after themselves. There are also several sites handingout clothing that gets discarded along the roadsides. Discussed the possibility ofusing video for monitoring and reporting violations.
    • Councilmember Pauline Medrano, DPD and Cedars Neighborhood Association MeetingTuesday April 5th, 2011 3 - 4pm, Dallas City Hall - 5ENSpecial Thanks to Deputy Chief Genovesi, Deputy Chief Golbeck, Lt King, Sargent Bynum, andOfficer Owens. 1. DCAD Demographic information  241 Business  258 Houses, Townhomes and Condo owner’s  Coming soon – MSW -165 Affordable housing units  474 Vacant lots – Case Studies http://www.nhi.org/online/issues/146/researchupdate.html 2. Cedars Neighborhood Association Quality of Life Survey Results  Litter  Loitering  Drug activity  Code violations  Graffiti 3. Cedars Quality of Life Initiatives Completed  Review and submit Street Light needs – 3/9/11  Vacant Lot review – 3/8/22  Loving My Community Project plan -3/31/11  VIP Training – 3/8/11  QOL survey – 3/15/11 Upcoming  Graffiti Wipe out – May 2011  Neighborhood Clean-up May 2011  Reporting trash and code violation – On-going  www.cnadallas.com website refresh 4. Sustainability of existing police support  DPD long term focus on Cedars Hot spots o Areas with statistically high number of offenses o Movement patterns-Ervay, Harwood  Funding. 5. City Attorneys office - LEGISLATION possibilities:  Day Labor Agencies Legislation i. Place workers on a direct deposit program 1. Wal-Mart has installed a special banking program called Second Chances for instance - and it is teaching people that have never had a bank account before, how to do so. ii. Or an EFT debit card system iii. Or a daily payroll service. iv. Plus legislation stating cash checking stores would not be allowed within a few thousand feet of a day labor agency  Styrofoam Ordinance 6. Next Steps
    • Issue #146, Summer 2006 - From Eyesores to Assets - CDC Abandoned Property StrategiesBy Alan MallachAnticipating ChangeAs Pat Morrissy, executive director of Housing and Neighborhood Development Services, Inc. (HANDS), acommunity development corporation in Orange, New Jersey, tells people, vacant lots and abandonedbuildings “can suck the life out of a neighborhood.” They impair the health of neighborhood residents,encourage criminal activity and raise the risk of fires. They reduce property values and make alreadystruggling neighborhoods less appealing to prospective homebuyers who can choose where they live. Ofall the physical factors blighting the lives of inner-city residents, abandoned properties may be the singlemost destructive, because they affect so many other conditions, making these other challengingproblems that much worse.Because vacant properties have such an impact, a strategy that focuses on them can transform an entireneighborhood, building the opportunity to create vibrant, economically diverse communities. As aresult, as CDCs have looked at conditions in their neighborhoods and worked with residents to framerebuilding strategies, vacant and abandoned properties have increasingly become a major part of theirefforts. As Morrissy says, “to save a neighborhood that’s in danger of going down, you can’t simply addnew homes. You have to put the process of decline in reverse.”Vacant LotsIn the late 1990s, residents of Southwest Baltimore came together to plan for the revitalization of theircommunity, a neighborhood of 20,000 residents west of the city’s downtown. One of their first concernswas the number of overgrown vacant lots riddled with trash and debris throughout the neighborhood.“They were the first thing people saw when they came into the neighborhood,” recalls Zach Holl,program director for the Bon Secours of Maryland Foundation, which spearheaded the effort. “Tenpercent of the neighborhood was vacant lots, and they looked like hell.” For a community determined torebuild its housing market and attract a diverse population, these lots, created as abandoned houseswere torn down, were a major obstacle.The result was an innovative Open Space Management Program, bringing together community andoutside partners to turn the neighborhood’s vacant lots from a neighborhood eyesore into a communityasset. In the first year, they turned 185 vacant lots into attractive, well-maintained open spaces, whileacquiring an additional 40 lots for reuse for side yards and other purposes. Bon Secours enlisted a widerange of partner organizations – including Civic Works, a nonprofit youth service organization, whichcarried out site improvements and major maintenance; the Community Law Center, which providedlegal assistance; and the Neighborhood Design Center, which helped with lot design and selection ofplant materials. Although the City of Baltimore was initially skeptical about the effort, they soon realized
    • its value and provided a variety of helpful support services to Operation ReachOut SouthWest (OROSW),the community’s umbrella organization.For the program’s organizers, this was about more than just vacant lots. It was about market buildingand community pride. After the program had gotten off the ground with staff involvement, thecommunity became more engaged. From the beginning, OROSW has sponsored “Clean and Green”competitions, where neighborhood residents form teams that take responsibility for at least five lotsand compete for valuable awards that are handed out each year at a banquet and award ceremony.As cities move aggressively to demolish abandoned buildings, more and more vacant lots are created,often replacing one problem with another. In 1975, Philadelphia contained 30,000 abandoned buildingsand only 6,000 vacant lots; by 2001, it still had roughly 30,000 abandoned buildings, but over 30,000vacant lots. As fast as buildings were being torn down, more were being abandoned, while the lots weregathering trash and debris. One organization that decided to do something about it was the NewKensington CDC (NKCDC), an organization serving a cluster of distressed neighborhoods – Kensington,Fishtown and Port Richmond – northeast of Center City. By 1995, this one area contained over 1,100vacant lots, ranging from postage stamp lots to abandoned one-time industrial tracts.As in Southwest Baltimore, the CDC realized that these lots were not only health and safety hazards,they discouraged nearby owners from fixing up their properties and prompted anyone who could affordthe move to leave the neighborhood. In 1996, the CDC started its Vacant Land Management program,with technical support from the Pennsylvania Horticultural Society and a combination of CDBG andfoundation funds.By 2004, NKCDC had reclaimed over 600 of the vacant parcels, stabilizing them, planting trees andselling 200 to homeowners as side yards. Consolidating lots into larger parcels, NKCDC also created acommunity garden center on a high-profile site on Frankford Avenue, the neighborhood’s main street,and worked with Greensgrow Farms, a community agriculture organization, to create a three-quarteracre urban farm on the site of an abandoned galvanized steel plant, which today supplies fresh produceto many of Philadelphia’s most exclusive restaurants.After 10 years, the CDC’s efforts have had a dramatic effect on the community. “The program has madea tremendous physical impact,” says NKCDC executive director Sandy Salzman. “With the increasingamount of clean and green spaces – replacing what were once trashed vacant lots – people no longerfeel threatened by their surroundings.” A recent study by the Wharton School at the University ofPennsylvania found that while being next to a vacant lot reduces property values, being next to a lotthat NKCDC had cleaned, landscaped and stabilized led to a long-term increase of 30 percent comparedto other properties in the area. Now, after decades of being neglected, Kensington and Fishtown arebeing “discovered.”
    • Abandoned HousesOperation ReachOut SouthWest wasn’t the only Baltimore organization that saw vacant properties asboth problem and solution. In 1995, a new CDC had just been set up across town in Patterson Park, abadly disinvested neighborhood ravaged by crime and drugs. Fewer and fewer homeowners wereinterested in buying in the area, and properties were being rented out or bought by slumlords whowould milk the property for a few years and then walk away. Homeownership rates were dropping, andin parts of the neighborhood one out of four homes stood vacant and abandoned. In the heart of theneighborhood, the once-magnificent 19th century Patterson Park had so deteriorated that many of theneighborhood’s residents never entered it.Patterson Park CDC (PPCDC) set out to gain control of the vacant houses in the neighborhood,rehabilitate them to a high standard, sell some and rent others. Most houses were sold at market rates,while rental units were offered at below-market levels, reflecting the CDC’s goal of creating aneconomically and socially diverse community of choice. By 2002, PPCDC had already rehabbed 261homes, of which they had sold 120 and rented out 141. By that year, PPCDC was selling its houses fornearly $120,000, or almost three times the $45,000 they commanded in 1997. By the spring of 2006, theCDC was listing one of its houses for $399,000. PPCDC was also a key player in the restoration of thepark, which has since become a major neighborhood asset.Vacant, abandoned properties have also been the focus of HANDS’ efforts, in Orange, New Jersey. Bythe 1980s Orange, an older working-class suburb of Newark, was in bad shape. Property values weredown, crime was up and abandoned properties were commonplace, destabilizing many blocks. Withnearly 300 abandoned houses scattered around this small city of little more than two square miles, fewneighborhoods were immune to their destructive effect.HANDS had begun building and rehabilitating scattered affordable housing for first-time homebuyers in1985, but after 10 years they realized that something critical was missing. In 1996, they adopted a newapproach focusing directly on the city’s abandoned houses; in Morrissy’s words, to “take the biggesteyesore on a block where…the neighbors don’t even want to walk past…take it, get control of it…andtransform it into a house that sends a positive message about what’s going on in the neighborhood.”HANDS prepared an inventory of Orange’s problem properties and systematically set out to gain controlof them, tracking down property owners and lienholders across the United States, buying tax liens andforeclosing, clearing title. Using a mixture of public and private funds, HANDS rehabilitated theproperties, sold them to first-time homebuyers and put them back on the tax rolls.The results have been dramatic. By 2005, the number of abandoned houses in Orange had dropped tobarely 70 properties, of which Morrissy says, “only a dozen of these are real hard core.” Meanwhile,between 2000 and 2004, the average sales price in Orange increased by 50 percent, from $118,000 to$178,000. HANDS, in fact, has begun to shift gears, taking on a comprehensive revitalization strategy forthe city’s Valley neighborhood, which will include a large-scale mixed-use redevelopment of a cluster offormer hat factories in partnership with two for-profit developers.
    • Neither Patterson Park CDC nor HANDS limited themselves to city-owned properties, or waited forproperties to be offered them, either by the city or by private owners. Perhaps the most critical singleelement in the success of their efforts was that both CDCs made the same entrepreneurial decision: tomove aggressively to acquire properties, using whatever financial resources, legal and negotiating toolsthat were available. Both organizations took risks, taking control of properties that they might not beable to use immediately, and banking properties for future reuse. While they partnered with citygovernment, they did not allow the city to dictate either the scope or the pace of their efforts. Theyrecognized a fundamental reality – without control of properties, one cannot control the future of thecommunity.Lessons for CDCsThe experience of the four CDCs described here, along with others around the country, demonstratesclearly that a strategy that prioritizes vacant properties – either vacant lots or abandoned houses – canbe an effective means of bringing neighborhoods back, restoring residents’ faith in their community andturning around long-term decline in property values. Besides the importance of gaining control ofproperties, other key lessons include:Vacant properties must be a priority. While no CDC is likely to focus exclusively on vacant properties, avacant property strategy demands that it be a priority for the organization; that it be a steady, ongoingeffort; and that tracking the status of vacant properties in the neighborhood be a constant, rather thanintermittent, task.Scale is critical. The nature of abandoned properties is that every one is a problem, and that scattered,haphazard efforts are not valuable. NKCDC may not have cleaned up every one of the 1,100 vacant lotsin the neighborhood, but they transformed over 600 of them. Patterson Park CDC reclaimed nearly 300houses in less than eight years. While a long-term strategy is critical, without the ability to go to scale –and do so relatively quickly – a CDC will not be able to get ahead of the problem and generateproductive long-term results.A long-term commitment is needed. Even once the CDC is operating at scale, dealing with vacantproperties can be a slow process, especially, as in Orange, where the heart of the strategy called forgetting control of buildings from irresponsible private owners. The effects of the strategy are alsogradual, and only visible after years of effort. HANDS, Patterson Park and New Kensington have all beenpursuing their vacant property strategies for 10 or more years.Vacant property strategies require specialized expertise. The expertise required will vary depending onthe type of properties and the strategy being pursued. HANDS needed to recruit expertise in arcaneareas of property law such as tax foreclosure, while Bon Secours needed both legal and design expertise
    • for its Southwest Baltimore strategy. Without the guidance of the Pennsylvania Horticultural Society,NKCDC would have had a far harder time putting together its vacant land management program.The strategy must be tied to other community building efforts. None of these CDCs does only vacantproperties. The open space program in Southwest Baltimore is part of a comprehensive revitalizationstrategy incorporating many different programs and activities. NKCDC and HANDS run homebuyercounseling and assistance programs, and Patterson Park CDC’s activities include organizing parkprograms and providing services to new immigrants. All of these efforts are coordinated with the vacantproperty strategy; HANDS and PPCDC use their homebuyer counseling programs to funnel buyers intothe vacant houses they restore, while OROSW and NKCDC both use their open space or vacant lotprograms as ways to build resident engagement and community cohesion.The most important lesson, however, is that abandoned property strategies work. Far more than manyalternative CDC activities, including affordable housing construction, such strategies go directly to theheart of why the housing market in an area is not functioning effectively, and why the neighborhood’sproblems seem so intractable. They are not easy, and not for the faint-hearted, but abandoned propertystrategies have the potential to be transformative strategies for the revitalization of distressed inner-cityneighborhoods.Copyright 2006Alan Mallach is research director for the National Housing Institute. His latest book is Bringing BuildingsBack: From Abandoned Properties to Community Assets.Anticipating ChangeJust as vacant, abandoned properties act as a drag on property values, an effective strategy thateliminates them or – as in Southwest Baltimore or Kensington – neutralizes their negative effects, canbecome a spur to increase property values. Where the location of the neighborhood is conducive tohigher property values, the increase can be dramatic. Both Patterson Park and Kensington are locatedrelatively close to areas that had begun to gentrify in the 1990s, while Orange is located in the heart ofthe New York metropolitan area, with commuter rail access to Newark and New York City.These neighborhoods have changed dramatically in the past few years. Where vacant houses might oncesit abandoned in Orange neighborhoods for years or decades, today – except for a handful withintractable legal or title problems – investors and speculators move quickly to snap up vacantproperties, fixing them up and reselling or renting them out. In Patterson Park, houses that might nothave found a buyer at any price 10 years ago are selling for more than $300,000.
    • This is both good and bad. A stronger market can mean a healthier neighborhood, where economicallydiverse homebuyers choose to buy and where upwardly mobile families choose to stay. At the sametime it creates increasing pressure on the area’s lower-income families and individuals who previouslyfound the neighborhood an affordable place to live. CDCs should anticipate that, over time, a risingmarket may force many of those families out of their community, through higher property taxes onhomeowners, rent increases or displacement, as existing buildings are converted to homeownership ordemolished for more profitable uses. Markets are powerful forces and can easily preempt the CDC’sgoal of building an economically diverse community. Once they take hold, there may be little a CDC cando to preserve affordability and maintain diversity.A CDC in an impoverished, struggling neighborhood pockmarked by vacant lots and abandoned housesmay find it difficult even to imagine the possibility that, within a few years, demand might increase tothe point where competition for the neighborhood’s houses may become a problem. Yet that isprecisely what is required. Each organization contemplating a vacant property strategy – or indeed anycomprehensive revitalization effort – must ask itself how it will deal with market pressures, if and whenthose pressures arise. Only by anticipating change, and building strategies to hold onto affordablehousing, can a CDC create the conditions in which an economically diverse population is a sustainablereality for a neighborhood, rather than a transitional state between an impoverished neighborhood andan affluent one.– A.M.Research Notes• Bringing Buildings Back, the first comprehensive guide to abandoned property, is now available. Itcontains a wealth of good practices, like those described in this issue’s Research Update, and providesstrategies for prevention, management and the reuse of such property.• Shared Equity Homeownership: The Changing Landscape of Resale-Restricted, Owner-OccupiedHousing will be available on nhi.org later in 2006. This report examines the role of third-sector housing –inclusionary units, limited-equity coops and community land trusts – in providing an affordable form ofhomeownership for millions of Americans whose incomes are between 30 percent and 120 percent oflocal area median income.
    • Cedars Neighborhood 2011 Crime SurveyAs part of the new crime / quality of life committee, we are exploring block captain scenarios. Pleasereview neighborhood regions map to selection your region. Region 1 21% Region 2 16% Region 3 5% Region 4 9% Region 5 32% Region 6 2% Region 7 0% Region 8 2% Region 9 13%
    • Please check the space that best describes the type of crime(s) concerns occuring in your community. Burglary (Residential/Business) 31 57% Theft (BMV) 36 67% Auto Theft 13 24% Disturbance (Disorderly Conduct, Loud Music) 35 65% Drugs/Drug Location 39 72% Loitering 46 85% Vacant houses (Code Violation/ Squatters) 29 54% Speeding 15 28% Gunfire (Shooting) 8 15% Gambling 3 6% Criminal Mischief 19 35% Motel (Criminal Activity) 9 17% Prostitution (male) 18 33% Prostitution (female) 18 33% None 0 0% Other 8 15% People may select more than one checkbox, so percentages may add up to more than 100%.
    • Do you feel you have adequatepolice patrol in your area?Yes 18 32%No 32 57% Is there a good relation be- tween your community and Police Department? Yes 48 86% No 7 13% Do you know the Neighbor- hood Police Office (NPO) for your area?Yes 24 43%No 31 55%Do you belong to a CrimeWatch Group or Neighbor-hood Association? Yes 40 71% No 16 29%
    • Do you have a contact person within the Dallas Police De- partment? Yes 32 57% No 24 43% When was the last time you spoke or met with an officer? None 8 14% 1-3 month 29 52% 4-6 month 5 9% 7-9 month 5 9% Over a year 2 4% Other 7 13%What type of contact did you have withpolice if any? (Check as man as apply)None 8 15%Reporting a neighborhooddisturbance 24 45%Victim of crime (example;burglary, theft, assault) 8 15%Witness a crime 10 19%Trafic Violation 2 4%Other 22 42%
    • Please describe your contact with police in your neighbrohood if any? None 4 7% Courteous 47 84% Rude 1 2% Indifferent 4 7% Please rate the police response time in your communit None 3 5% Good 15 27% Satisfactory 27 48% Poor 8 14% Apartment 3 5% House 8 14% Business 4 7% Townhome 15 27% Condo 15 27% Other 11 20%
    • Age Group 17-19 0 0% 20-29 4 7% 30-49 31 55% 50-64 20 36% 65+ 1 2% Other 0 0% Male 35 63% Female 21 38% Single 23 41% Married 27 48% Children 0 0% Other 6 11%
    • Truancy 5 11% Gang Activity 9 19%Juvenile Issues Curfew Violations 6 13% Graffiti 34 72% None 9 19% Other 6 13% People may select more than one checkbox, so percentages may add up to more than 100%.Please rank additional neigh- Litter 45 92%borhood concerns Code violations 34 69% Encampments 37 76% 18-wheeler / Truck traffic (i.e. parking on empty lots) 28 57% Other 8 16% People may select more than one checkbox, so percentages may add up to more than 100%.
    • CHAPTER 33 STYROFOAM ORDINANCEWhereas, the Council finds that:1. Located in Maine on the shore of the North Atlantic Ocean, an area known world-wide for its natural beauty, fish and other wildlife, the Town of Freeport believes that it has an obligation to maintain and preserve its special natural environment;2. Maintenance of Freeport as litter-free as possible is important to protect and preserve its natural environment and enhance its quality of life for residents and visitors;3. The United Nations Environmental Programme Diplomatic Conference in Montreal (Montreal Protocol on Substances that Deplete the Ozone Layer) acknowledged the threat of chlorofluorocarbons to the earths atmosphere and established international goals for the phased reduction of the manufacture and use of specific chlorofluorocarbon compounds ("CFCs"). The Town of Freeport supports international and federal efforts to reduce the non-essential use of chlorofluorocarbons.;4. The Federal Environmental Protection Agency reports that foam products account for 28% of ozone-depleting potential of CFCs. Blowing agents used in the production of non-CFC PSFs create hazardous earth-level smog;5. The Federal Environmental Protection Agency has issued a national municipal waste strategy calling for a 25 percent reduction in solid waste by 1992. The strategy, titled "The Solid Waste Dilemma: An Agenda for Action", includes the promotion of recycling. The State of Maine is considering how to implement this strategy;6. The State of Maine has banned the service of food and beverages in polystyrene foam containers at facilities or functions of the State or its political subdivisions effective January 1, 1990 (38 MRSA Section 1651 et seq.);7. Readily disposable consumer plastic containers and wrappers (including those made from polystyrene foam) are essentially not biodegradable and as litter do not decompose over time into the natural environment;8. The use of readily disposable consumer plastic containers and wrappers has increased annually and projections indicate a significant growth in their use;9. Plastic litter, particularly polystyrene foam, poses a threat to the natural environment, including fish and other wildlife; -1-
    • 10. This Ordinance will serve the public interest by reducing the amount of non-biodegradable waste littering Freeport as a portion of any substitute packaging is expected to be composed of biodegradable material in whole or in part. Polystyrene foam litter is highly durable, buoyant, and non-biodegradable and, therefore, persists and detracts from the appearance of the area longer than many other types of litter;11. At the present time there is no Recycling Program in Freeport for polystyrene foam food or beverage containers;12. Some other commonly used food packaging materials are also non-biodegradable and contribute to litter problems; nevertheless, the Council finds that it is appropriate to regulate polystyrene foam food packaging while not regulating other types of food packaging at this time for the following reasons: A. To minimize disruption in the food services and sales industry, the Council should avoid banning a wide range of packaging materials at one time. It might be appropriate to ban other packaging materials in the future, but an incremental approach to eliminating undesirable packaging materials will cause less disruption and allow the Town to handle enforcement in more manageable stages; B. Polystyrene foam is the most commonly used non-reuseable food packaging material for prepared foods in restaurants and food service establishments in Freeport and, therefore, prohibiting its use for such purpose and its sale at retail will be the most effective way of reducing non-biodegradable litter in Freeport; C. Ingestion of polystyrene foam particles has been identified as a hazard to wildlife, while this problem has not been associated with other food packaging materials.NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT ORDERED:1. On and after January 1, 1990, no retail food vendor shall serve or sell prepared food and no food packager shall package meat, eggs, bakery products or other food in polystyrene foam (PSF) containers;2. On and after January 1, 1990, no vendor in the Town of Freeport who sells tangible personal property at retail shall sell polystyrene foam food or beverage containers;3. Violations of this Ordinance shall be punishable by fines as follows: A. A fine not exceeding $250 for the first violation in a one-year period; B. A fine not exceeding $500 for the second and each subsequent violation in a one-year period;