I have a situation in which, yes, I am afraid to use my name.

The neighbor of concern is a corporation. The issue has been going on for around ten years. At first, I filled out a form online to report train type storage containers being permanently parked on the street. Nothing happened. Now they have chemical barrels and two lead-acid batteries on the easement by the curb. They have huge pieces of steel road barrier such as you might encounter on a freeway bridge. The have IBC totes on the street with the big storage containers. They have one IBC tote on top of one of the storage containers! They have an asphalt roller parked on the street. All these things are just stored there; they don't move, ever.

I've brought it to the attention of the city. I talked with my neighborhood captain about it. She took it to the larger neighborhood association which supposedly has good contacts in city hall. But...nothing happens.

In trying to learn about the corporation, a big construction firm, I find "hints" in news stories that they may be tied to organized crime. For example, one man who had a complaint against this company said he was being followed and his life threatened. So, nope, I'm not going to push it. If inspectors from the city will not or cannot get it taken care of, well, I'll just let the shrubs in my garden grow bigger to hide my view of the ugliness.

People can and have filed false complaints on people out of spite or something personal going on. It is impossible to defend oneself sufficiently against an allegation without knowing all the facts, including who reported you.

ABSOLUTELY!

Anonymity only protects the bullies. As matthias_lang has found it does nothing to protect the person who has a valid grievance. One can't imagine what damage these sickos can do to one's reputation and safety unless you've been there. They will lie through their teeth and once they see they are protected by so called privacy policies they will continue to escalate the lies. They start by reporting little things. When those things are found to be untrue they escalate. They don't care about the collateral damage to innocent children or family. This is how things end up escalating to violence. Bullies only fear one thing, getting hit back harder than they can hit. The sociopaths I had to deal with are gone. It was only their bad karma and them stupidly (extreme stupidity LOL) playing a card that put me in a position of strength over them to be able to take care of the problem once and for all. No help from the authorities, no help from the system, no help from the courts. Because Amy is 100% correct. It doesn't help knowing who has done something if there are no records available to support you. "Yes we know they are lying" "Can you send me a record of the complaint?" "Sorry no, their privacy doesn't allow it". It's hamster wheel policy.

no. period.

elmer,

Who cares if they're self entitled? They're not gonna whip out their gun or whatever else they might do? Still haven't seen a GOOD reason to know who it is reporting. Just what are you gonna do if you do know? Though, I guess it's worse if you don't know, "guess"who it is, and you're wrong. Because you punish the wrong person and the person who did you report you "gets away with it".

Nothing good comes from knowing.

Just be a good neighbor, and if you're wrongly reported, it'll bear out. If you're in violation, then being reminded was correct.

"I think the answer might be 'It depends....""

The answer is ALWAYS "it depends.....". One size never fits all, and expecting that kind of easy answer is a mistake. Both sides (anonymous and not) have pros and cons, at different times in different situations.

Wildchild, anonymity can also protect one FROM the bullies. Last year someone apparently complained to r city about a loud party in the neighborhood. The police arrived to ask the music be turned down. The incident entered the local online group. Turns out, the party was at the local school, and commenters were livid that someone thought the kids should not have a party to celebrate the return to the classroom. I mean, it got vile. The couple of people who early in had commented on the noise they could hear 2 blocks away, and someone across the street from the school wondering what the noise was, backed off pretty quickly. It was obvious some people, who did not have children in the school, had no way of knowing what was going on. But the written attacks on whoever called the city went on and on and were cringe worthy. I was rather ashamed of my otherwise-supportive neighborhood.

Toronto Vet,

Since you're being level headed, can you tell me what the pros are? My mind is still open, but I just don't think that anyone else can tell me calmly.

Some of these examples have gotten way out of hand. Please remember that the question was framed to be about the ”reporting of nuisances, code violations, etc.” Someone’s going to go to the site and either find leaf blowers going off at 6am or they’re not. A tree being cut down without a permit, or not. This isn’t about reporting crimes that may or may not have occurred.

Rob, I agree with you about there seeming to be not many (if any) pros to knowing who made a report. If you are doing something that should be reported, then why do you want to know? If you’re not, then there are really no consequences to you of a false report. If someone is harassing you via false reports, it does’t take long for those taking the reports to catch on to that. If it raises to the level of needing intervention (like a protective order or lawsuit), there are legal ways to find out who it is.

"The Sixth Amendment guarantees the rights of criminal defendants, including the right to a public trial without unnecessary delay, the right to a lawyer, the right to an impartial jury, and the right to know who your accusers are and the nature of the charges and evidence against you."

I realize the above refers to criminal charges, and most of the situations discussed here are not criminal, but I think those accused of lesser infractions should be afforded the same courtesy. I know if someone were to file a complaint against me, I would want to know the 'who, what, where and why' of it. I also believe that anonymity only encourages false and spiteful reporting.

Rusty

Municipal code violations are generally not a criminal matter, and if something did turn out to be a criminal matter, law enforcement would presumably take over and it would no longer be under the control of municipal authorities.

I believe many law enforcement jurisdictions have laws shielding people who report crimes.

The cited provision of the Constitution doesn't apply.

bpath Written attacks? You don't know vile. Try destruction of property. Try using innocent children to wreak chaos, including their own. Try vehicle theft. Try being being assaulted with a thrown rocks aimed at your head. You have no idea of vile. Written words? The psychopaths really know how to manipulate and work the system. Lucky you that written attacks are the worst to deal with.

Lets compare it to something we all can relate to then.

Many discussions have been started here, discussing missing comments or threads. They are full of speculation on who did it and why, why not just scroll on by, and in general expressing disdain at the action itself as well as the person/persons who flagged said comments or posts. For a while whoever was doing it was running rampant, flagging everywhere. Now, why the speculation? Do you really think anyone here was going to hunt someone down, or even just return the favor by flagging their comments or threads? Nah. But people wanted to KNOW why threads that they were interested in were being flagged, or why their comments arguing with someone were. Because its completely NORMAL to want to know who has an issue with you to the point where they take an official action against you! Even if whatever was flagged was technically against whatever rules are set out, if that person or persons had an issue with it, why not express it in the thread, instead of skulking about behind the safety of their computer screen, tattling? I would want to know, because that way I know to avoid interaction with that person, because frivolous snitching shows poor character, whether it be on an internet forum or because the Smiths on the corner lot haven't weedeated around their mailbox this week.

I think there needs to be a clear distinction between local authorities accepting anonymous complaints from people unwilling to identify themselves, and local authorities publicly identifying complainants. It seems to me that if a complaint is made, the dispute is not between the person accused of violating the local rules and the complainant, but between the violator and the authorities responsible for enforcing those rules. The complaint itself should be available publicly, so that the "accused" (for want of a better word) has the right to know what he has been accused of, but I don't see why the identity of the complainant needs to be revealed. Either there was a breach of local laws, or there wasn't, and it's up to the council authorities or police to pursue it. Let the debate be between the authorities and the alleged violator, rather than between the complainant and the violator.

That said, the complainant should not be anonymous to the authorities themselves. He or she should be prepared to identify himself to the authorities.

"can you tell me what the pros are? My mind is still open, but I just don't think that anyone else can tell me calmly."

The pros of anonymous reporting are that it encourages reports of civic violations without fear of retribution, and in most cases there is no need for the violator to know who reported them anyway. A report is made to the authorities, and a situation is investigated. Either there's a violation, or there isn't. It doesn't matter who reported it. If there are repeat offenders, or repeat false accusations, then those are dealt with as a separate matter. It avoids the situation of "Oh, that Mr. Wilson is complaining about his neighbour's kid again.....don't bother, it's usually nothing" when in fact it's actually something.

The pros of identified reporting is that it doesn't limit the authorities to what's happening at the moment, but they can speak to the person reporting and consider an investigation.

jmm, I totally agree with what you've said. I don't know that the complaintant needs to be anonymous, but I feel strongly that the person who is in the wrong has little need to know.

You said it much better

To me: reporting is tattle tailing. Which is something we teach our children not to do. If you see a neighbour doing something that goes against city bylaws, maybe they don't know it? Maybe go over and say, "hey, did you know you can get into trouble for that? I don't want you to get in trouble." That way, you're not the bad guy, just giving them fair warning. Why are people so afraid to say something to people themselves, rather than hiding behind an anonymous letter or phone call and having someone else do it for you? Isn't this something we teach our children? "Don't tattle tail, it's not nice." Why is it as adults we expect others to do our dirty work, yet we teach our kids to speak out themselves? I don't get it.

There is no 'one size fits all' in these cases. So many possibilities. How about absentee landlords? How does a neighbor talk to them? Our city has a very successful program in place that forces absentee landlords to either fix up or sell off/forfeit abandoned properties, after repeated code violations.

And I've always taught kids tattling is telling on someone just to get them in trouble, as opposed to telling about something important, like someone or something being harmed.

There is a world of difference between tattling and whistleblowing. "Tattling" is something that kids do and parenting authorities are not convinced it is necessarily a bad thing anyway. There ARE positive aspects. But reporting illegal activities or whistleblowing is not something relegated to children and anonymity or not is the reporting individual's choice.

Adult personal confrontation in this day and age can - and often does - result in escalation and violence. As someone else mentioned earlier, even law enforcement will protect anonymity for those reporting crimes or misbehaviors and discourage face to face confrontation.

Yeah - here in my state, confronting a stranger might get someone killed!

The issue with flagging that we all used to suffer from was mostly the result of the forum rules enforcement not being properly done. They would know who was flagging for fun and obviously did nothing much about it even though it led to lots of ill will among posters. I always surmised the hope was we would all just leave if we got irritated enough. It was something I could ignore. But I got to live in the midst of the mess of a neighbor who had a grudge against the people who owned the house I was living in. He reported them for all sorts of imaginary ills including growing pot on the property and facilitating illegal elk hunting. He had lost his case on a boundary issue. He finally sold and moved. It was very unpleasant. He had an illegal impoundment on his property. Still the owners of my property did not turn him in for it. You would think.....

My old neighborhood was full of young families with lots of kids. One of my neighbors noticed a lot of cars going to one particular home, her next door neighbor. She went over there and said she thought they were selling drugs! yep, they sold shortly after that.

Another friend was renting a home in a city abouti an hour from them. .They received a letter from that city saying drugs were being sold there. They called the renter and told them they had to leave. No problem, no drug dealer wants to sell drugs when the police know where they are!

I am unhappy that people in my neighborhood light up their homes and yards like commercial buildings, BUT the town permits it...provided the lights are turned off at 11 p.m. Our next door neighbors installed lights that were on all night, past dawn. I asked if they knew about the rule. They said they did not, but didn't know how to adjust the timer. (Really?) About a month later, the lights started going off a little after midnight. (Entitlement?) I didn't take it further.

I fail to see the appeal of this kind of lighting. We can no longer see the stars at night nor do we hear the occasional owl. These are not 'safety lights', but uplights around the fronts and sides of homes and beneath large trees. Maybe this 'fad' will come to an end?

I don't think the distinction between what's above was referred to as "tattling" vs "whistleblowing" has anything to do with a person's age or subject matter.

Specifically, I think "whistleblowing" refers to a situation where an insider, usually an employee or other person with knowledge of internal information within an organization, discloses without authorization certain information they believe concerns ill-advised, impermissible, illegal, or damaging conduct or circumstances within the organization. Usually to a regulator, an oversight group (as with governmental conduct) or sometimes even to the public, in the hope that such disclosure will bring action to end or investigate what the person considers to be a problem.

I can't get past the thought that a self-appointed vigilante thinks it's their right or duty to be a finger pointer to authorities about non-criminal conduct that they dislike or that bothers them. In any event, that's not whistleblowing.

I think the word vigilante is being misused here. 🙄

The city can't be everywhere all the time. It requires people to report things that are in violation. I do think it's right to ask first if you can, like I could for my neighbor next door. She kept ignoring me, and I learned after the three times of asking, never to ask again. I just tolerated her stupidity. Now someone reported her shed was dilapidated and falling over, and I'm not sure why they reported her for it. My neighbor across the way, and I watched as they out of their car and took pictures of it. I didn't find that to be appropriate at all. But the city made her fix it, so it must have been a violation.

Elmer, do you consider "criminal activity" to be only crimes against persons or properties? Does your definition include code violations that might lead to fire hazards and unsafe living conditions? Buildings that may collapse? Trees that may damage someone or something? Or do you consider those to be "MYOB"?

As rob's story illustrates, while it seems nice to give a neighbor the chance to conform to the law, if they won't, and the city presses the point, the neighbor thinks you forced the issue, whether you did or not. People don't like to admit their wrongs, and you become the crabby neighbor.

rob, I think your attitude rather than being an independent or a fresh view instead starts with the assumption that the actions you believe justified are warranted.

Not all will agree with that and I don't. A definition I found for "vigilante" is

"A person who considers it their own responsibility to uphold the law in their neighborhood and often does so summarily and without legal jurisdiction."

If you think that law or code enforcement where you live is subpar, your approach should be to communicate with the appropriate elected office holders who are responsible for managing your town's receipts and expenditures so that they understand your reasons for believing spending priorities need to be changed. They'll either agree with you and make those changes after some period or they won't, that's what representative government is about. It's not up to you to fill in what you think is a gap.

Here's something I think to be a parallel situation - let's assume that cannabis use is illegal in your state. You're sitting out in your patio one afternoon, enjoying the weather and you detect the odor of burning cannabis (as would be expected from someone smoking it) coming from your neighbor's house. Would you call the police (I hope not)? Would you be disappointed if they declined to come out? What would you do?

I find your use of the word hyperbolic.

To answer your question, that's happened when I was at a child's t-ball game, and I didn't report them. I don't go around reporting everybody for everything. I didn't even report her dilapidated shed that wasn't going to fall on anything except possibly her.

You didn't do anything but weaken your own point by using that word.

And I don't expect everybody to agree with my opinion about reporting neighborhood issues. We all have our own feelings about it.

Just know that many, if not most, laws and regulations come into being because something bad likely happened...

Vigilantism is taking the law into one's own hands....that's far more than just reporting to authorities a suspected violation and asking them to investigate. Vigilantism is becoming the law itself and inflicting punishment -- from harassment to hanging -- on the suspected violators regardless of guilt or innocence.

"A definition I found for "vigilante" is

'A person who considers it their own responsibility to uphold the law in their neighborhood and often does so summarily and without legal jurisdiction.'"

That is the definition of a vigilante, all right, but that is not what is being discussed here. The person making the complaint is not acting summarily and without legal jurisdiction unless he goes out and pulls down the offending shed himself; he or she is reporting an apparent violation and asking the people with the legal jurisdiction to investigate. It's not very different in principle from reporting a case of apparent domestic violence or child abuse occurring next door.

rob, I can live with your suggesting my comment was hyperbolic. Hyperboles - comments that are intentional exaggerations for effect, not intended to be taken literally. Others missed that.

Neighborhood sheriff. Street snoop. Pick and choose what gets called in? Why call anything in that's doesn't involve risk to someone's life or well-being?

We can look at it differently.

I guess if you are only looking at YOUR well-being, you could easily ignore junk cars leaking toxic fluids, unpermitted building additions or remodels that could adversely impact (if uninspected) future owners, danger trees that won't fall on YOUR house or property, drug dealers who quietly go about their buys and sells next door but bring potentially dangerous people and situations into the neighborhood and contribute to the harm done to others and society in general...well, yes, then just close your blinds and look the other way. Unleashed dogs? Maybe no harm until they attack a neighbor child, but hey, if you have no kids playing in your front yard, then why worry?

But if you feel like a contributing and responsible member of a community that cares about others, the environment, other people's children besides your own, then I think we all have an obligation to act when we see something that should be reported for the good of the many. We ARE the government, all of us.

^^^ Very well said.

Rusty

Many of these comments prove the point that ” code enforcement should be by violation, not by complaint”. If this is followed by police/ code officers the neighbors would not have to report the violations and become the bad guy. No doubt every community has differing policies and very different code employees.

It is wonderful to think that we should all ignore violations by others as well as be free to do what we want in our own properties, but generally this is not realistic. Our local ordinances state that certain things become violations when they can be seen by others. If you live in the middle of your ten acres it is unlikely that anyone will know what you do . Most people have neighbors/ neighborhood therefore creating opportunities for annoyances. I think that most of us would be upset if our nextdoor neighbor began parking multiple junk vehicles in their yard….within your line of vision. This should be seen and corrected.

Someone mentioned property values being impacted by neighbors. This certainly is legitimate. There are countless examples where that would apply. Has anyone ever rejected a home purchase because of a neighboring property?

I think that the code office/ police dept need to know who is complaining but the offending party does not.

"But if you feel like a contributing and responsible member of a community that cares about others, the environment, other people's children besides your own, then I think we all have an obligation to act when we see something that should be reported for the good of the many."

Many neighborhoods have individuals who some might refer to as the "Neighborhood Busybody". We all know the type, someone who can always rationalize and justify interjecting themselves into matters of others about which they're otherwise uninvolved and that usually should be none of their concern. People who do this that I've known have injected themselves into whatever they choose whether it affects them or not (usually not), without any particular judgement or assessment of whether their involvement is needed, warranted or welcome. Like Chicken Little and the boy who cried "Wolf", they wind up being ignored by neighbors and officialdom.

What aspect of your comment differs from what one would expect from such persons?

"What aspect of your comment differs from what one would expect from such persons?"

I would suggest that, if a child isn't at risk of being bitten because the dog is now leashed, if a person isn't killed or property damaged by a falling tree because the tree has been removed, and if the neighbourhood isn't a hive of drug related crime because the drug den has been raided, then the " neighbourhood busybody" has contributed something of worth to his or her community.  The same cannot be said for the person who chooses to ignore transgressions which don't affect him personally.

If you start with what you want to justify and then work backward with imagination and rationalizations to suggest what incredibly unlikely issue someone's unwelcome intervention is needed to prevent, it comes out just like some of the comments above.

Those who like people like that, or who indeed act that way, are welcome to do so and should understand their self-justifications of vigilante conduct won't always be seen the same by others.

Vigilante? Reporting law or rule violations to the proper authorities is not vigilante conduct. Vigilante conduct would be taking the law into your own hands, cutting down the neighbor's dangerous tree, impounding loose dogs, burning down a drug house.

It isn't vigilante conduct. You are misusing the definition you yourself cited. Contacting those with authority to act when one sees something dangerous or anti social is responsible citizenship.  It is the antithesis of taking the law into one's own hands.

I am a member of the community in which I live, and if I see violent, anti-social  or negligent behavior which threatens the peace and safety of myself or those around me then I am going to try to do something . Why would anyone need "justification" for that?  Choosing to ignore these sorts of issues, now that does require self justification.

I'm still trying to understand where Elmer is drawing his line. If you see drug deals going on at the house next door, is that a "pull your shades" for you? Or is that criminal enough to call the authorities and tell them of your suspicions?

"If you see drug deals going on at the house next door, is that a "pull your shades" for you? Or is that criminal enough to call the authorities and tell them of your suspicions?"

Or even something less severe, but still with consequences - improper hazardous waste disposal, attracting pests, all-night noise. You "pull your shades" if you see something that you think is unattractive, whether it's your neighbour's outdoor art or their unkempt hedges, but when there are actual consequences (not personal preferences), it's reasonable to make appropriate complaints to the relevant authorities.

I cannot imagine the pain a neighbor might feel if they noticed an ongoing code violation such as a broken gate to a back yard pool but chose to say nothing, and subsequently someone's child, maybe even their own, was found dead, drowned in the pool.

I do get (and agree) that violations such as the shade of paint one's garage is painted is not worthy of reporting, but some reports, like the pool example above, can mean the difference between life or death.

In my township it can depend on how you make the complaint if it is anoymous or not. If someone phones it in, a message is taken of a complaint but it isn't usually revealed who made it. Or if someone sees an official out and about and speaks with them about a complaint, then it usually isn't revealed either. The complaints are forwarded to the appropiate inspector or officer and usually noted at town hall meetings.

When citizens speak at town hall meetings, they give their name and address and then make their statement. So if it's a complaint, then their name and address is revealed along with the publicly made complaint.

So say Sally has a complaint about 111 Elm street, ordinance violation of unleashed dog leaving the yard or threating people. If she calls in to the town hall, the complaint gets forwarded to the ordinance officer and it's noted at the next town hall meeting that there was a complaint made on 111 Elm street and it's being attended. Sally's name isn't mentioned. If Sally goes to a town hall meeting to complain- then she would announce herself and address before making the complaint and it's noted in the meeting minutes with her information and complaint. Then the ordinance officer follows up, ect.

If a complaint gets registered through the local authorities, like the dog getting called into the sheriff department- then that complaint shows up in the monthly sheriff report with it's code and the offending address, and no record of who called it in to the sheriff office. Monthly sheriff reports are given out at every town hall meeting. If that dog gets called into animal control- there usually isn't any complaint record forwarded to the sheriff or to the town hall.

I think that the code office/ police dept need to know who is complaining but the offending party does not.

Agreed.

"I'm still trying to understand where Elmer is drawing his line. If you see drug deals going on at the house next door,"

However very unlikely this is for the vast majority of people, tell me how I would "see" this without snooping and being nosey about what a neighbor is or isn't doing?

@Elmer J Fudd...A neighbor of mine, recently, posted on the Nextdoor app that his nextdoor neighbor had people stopping by, staying for a few minutes, then leaving. Always different cars, he was sure they were dealing drugs. He wanted to know "who" he should contact. He wasn't being nosey....just lots of cars coming and going in a gated community.....how strange.

The home he was speaking of has a HUGE construction crew at the house every day. But I think it's nice he noticed all the cars & people....

I would contact this site and make a report to them, something I had to do when the brook near my home was endangered by an oil company. They took care of everything. https://www.usa.gov/federal-agencies/environmental-protection-agency