What’s the point of having an anti-loitering ordinance on the books if it’s never going to be enforced?

None whatsoever.

That pointlessness is now enshrined in the Duluth City Code after a City Council vote Monday against enforcing the &uot;move-on law&uot; that would allow police to shoo away loiterers from the fronts of downtown businesses.

Passed two years ago with the provision that it could only be enforced at the request of affected business owners, and then only with City Council approval, the ordinance went down 5-4 in its first test Monday when councilors denied the request of a group of First Street businesses to have it applied to their turf.

Among those voting against enforcing it was City Council President Donny Ness, who told other councilors his only regret was they couldn’t withdraw the actual ordinance on the spot. Nonetheless, he said there are no plans to repeal it, saying: &uot;We have a lot more important matters to address right now without getting bogged down on this issue.&uot;

Excuse us, but there’s nothing to get bogged down about &045; just get rid of it. And unenforced laws can be a very real issue, as the governor and Legislature of Massachusetts found out recently when told one of their statutes banned American Indians from setting foot in Boston.

Until the request by the First Street group, the main backers of the ordinance were businesses near the Duluth Transit Authority centers on Superior Street. By their nature, though, it’s difficult in those areas to determine who’s a loiterer and who may be waiting for a bus. Further, no Superior Street business has requested that a zone be established.

The request by the First Street businesses addressed an obvious need. Councilors voting against granting the zones expressed concerns that loiterers or inebriated individuals and others would simply move down the street, and Police Chief Roger Waller told councilors that his department is short-staffed and can’t effectively enforce it.

So dispose of it then.

It’s unfortunate the ordinance wasn’t at least tested. There are serious problems on First Street, and it would have made sense for councilors to allow the zones for at least a specified period &045; say six months &045; with the possibility of renewal if it appeared to be effective.

But if the ordinance can’t address First Street’s problems, then it shouldn’t be used on Superior Street, either. Or anywhere.

&045; Duluth News Tribune