In fact, counter to what you claim, residents of West Adams Avenues did not selectively report issues to code enforcement. It was stated to code enforcement that any use at all of the McCarty property by anyone other than the church itself would need a change of use and a new certificate of occupancy.
It is my understanding that the investigation of this property by code enforcement is still ongoing. I for one find quite alarming that you state, in your response above, that now is the time to do a thorough investigation. Isn't it a sensible principle that you should investigate PRIOR to publication? Thorough research should precede publication, don't you think? This way, you could have avoided sullying the reputation of our stellar neighborhood prosecutor, Jan DeAndrade, whose name you don't even spell correctly. As I understand the process, if an order to comply is flouted, and an appeal is not filed, the city hands the issue to the prosecutor to ensure that the parties who received the order comply with it. This is part of the neighborhood prosecutor's job description. To enforce an Order to Comply is both entirely proper and necessary, and is no occasion for besmirching a reputation by implying improper behavior. As for your question concerning whether or not it is a politician's job to get involved in the above issue, I agree with the West Adams Avenues letter above: it is simply a matter of code enforcement. There is a code, and it has to be enforced. This wasn't a matter for the Councilman to resolve as though there was some kind of resolution to be achieved through negotiation and consensus. According to the ruling by code enforcement, the use of the McCarty property by Save Our Future was taking place without the necessary permits. Plain and simple. To my knowledge, the Councilman never took a position on this, and his office simply referred all questions from West Adams residents to the appropriate city departments, for the proper officials to rule on the issues. You can say what you like about Councilman Wesson, but you should check out the facts to make sure that what you say is accurate. What the CD 10 deputies told me, to my face, was that if code enforcement ruled that the use of the McCarty property by outside or affiliated organizations was legal, our neighborhood would just have to accept this as a matter of law. Everyone I spoke to at CD 10 was scrupulously unbiased, and saw this as a technical matter to be decided by the city departments set up precisely for this purpose. If it were a matter of politics, and left up to politicians, the enforcement of the code would be susceptible to patronage and cronyism, and the process would necessarily be polluted. So, in order to answer the question you pose above: "Isn't this CD 10's job?": most assuredly it is not, for all of the above reasons. I see that the previous writer mentions the same points, but it is clear that they bear repetition. The code is enormously technical, and has to do with issues of safety and due process, and is not up for rewriting in a town hall setting. It concerns me that you are not intending to address the errors in your text until a date that will doubtless be after the upcoming election, and until then, these factual inaccuracies will stand. It is my opinion that you should admit that you did not and do not have all the facts of the case, and that you will retract what you have said until you do have the facts. That would be the right thing to do. You rushed the gate on this one, and you should say so. And an apology to Ms Andrade is in order immediately.