Food Truck Issues
1411 S Grant ST
- Case Date:
- 10/14/2019
This picture was taken on 10/10 at 12:24 AM at the corner of Kirkwood/Dunn. The truck is called, "Smoked," and I do not see them as a registered truck on the list. I talked, "Ken," who said he and his wife own the truck and showed me a valid handicapped permit. I didn't get Ken's contact info or license plate.
Potholes, Other Street Repair
- Case Date:
- 11/28/2021
Two tires popped on right side of car due to road construction near Da Vinci
- Case Date:
- 12/29/2023
People are living year-round in an RV parked on an unimproved surface at 220 S. Maple Street. They have been there for about 18 months. I previously reported them to H.AN.D. and the city's legal department. There are also 3-5 other cars parked in the small property lot at all times. The man is apparently fixing cars for others. Various articles and garbage bags are often strewn about. Their has been many domestic violence and nuisance reports to the police and fire department during this time.
- Case Date:
- 1/10/2024
When is the electronic billboard case going to move forward in court? This has been non compliant for so long, is an eye sore, and sets a precedent for more distracting and tacky signage to enter this county and city. Please provide the public an update so we know that the same issues are still being addressed in the new year
- Case Date:
- 3/27/2024
Large electronic billboard eyesore still in place at kinser pike. Will this finally come down soon? It’s so bright and distracting to drivers and it can be seen at night as a bother from adjacent neighborhoods and properties (apartments and hotels). Is this going forward to get removed?
Smoking Violation
205 N College AVE
- Case Date:
- 4/3/2024
A tenant of this building reported there is a transient in one of the restrooms on the 6th floor. Caller said he thinks the person is smoking.
- Case Date:
- 4/19/2024
To whom it may concern,
The following describes multiple code violations from Chandler Automotive that I noticed/experienced during the process of retrieving my towed car from their site. I have video/audio evidence of the violations, and I would prefer if someone reached out to me so I can submit these as proof. It will only allow me to upload images through this submission form. Thank you:
BMC 4.32.140(b): Called the number at around 5:30pm to ask to retrieve car, employee stated that she will not be able to get my car until about 9:30/10pm. This is in violation of part 1 of section B, as well as violation of part 2 of section B, since this was well outside the sixty minutes.
I recorded the phone call where the employee told me 10pm. Please reach out if you would like this evidence.
BMC 4.32.140(f): The invoice, see attached, is not itemized correctly pursuant to the requirements of I.C. 24-14-5-1. The invoice is missing/incorrectly accounted for the following:
- I.C. 24-14-5-1(4)(D) - No VIN number.
- I.C. 24-14-5-1(4)(C) - No year.
- I.C. 24-14-5-1(5) - License plate # is incorrect.
- I.C. 24-14-5-1(C) - No explanation is given for the additional charges incurred, which is required here.
BMC 4.32.130(a)(2) - The company attempted to charge me $185 for the tow. One $25 charge being a go jack fee, and the other being a dollies fee. Since a go jack fee is a special fee, the total for those should not be $50 according to the code, but a maximum of $25. They corrected this upon me providing them a copy of the code. However, I have audio recording of them attempting to charge me that amount, and being unable to explain these additional charges.
BMC 4.32.120(a) - As stated above, the towing company failed to comply with applicable state law in the invoice.
BMC 4.32.120(e) - The vehicle was not able to be claimed upon calling at 5:30pm on 4/18/2024. Please reach out for a copy of the evidence as I am not able to upload it here.
These laws were created by the legislature with the intention to be construed strictly due to the stated purpose of this chapter being to protect the public from unconscionable practices (BMC 4.32.010). Please reach out to me if you have any additional questions. I plan on following up in fourteen (14) days if I have not heard back from the city on this matter by that time. Thank you for taking the time to read this complaint, and I appreciate your enforcement of the laws of our wonderful city.
Respectfully,
Matt Shelton
- Case Date:
- 7/14/2024
This is more of a question really. A neighbor has claimed quite a bit of land that is listed as city property, but claims because she mows it, it is hers. It seems the city agrees, because for years they've allowed only her to use the site. Is this true? I have close to half an acre behind my house the city isn't using it maintaining at all. I would really like to expand my current property into that area. I'd hate to put all that work in though before knowing if I would get the same deal with the city my neighbor has.