Local governments and the owners of small businesses have a symbiotic relationship.

Business owners need the services government provides. Government needs revenue from the businesses. That’s especially true in Tucson, where small businesses are the backbone of the local economy.

But like all relationships, problems crop up. And the current thorn in this relationship is the city’s evolving emphasis on certificates of occupancy.

There certainly are reasons why the city should check businesses before they open and periodically during their operation. City building codes must be followed and sales tax revenue, the city’s main source of revenue, must be collected.

But sometimes one must look at the city’s actions and wonder whether sufficient common sense is used.

That’s true in the case of Jim Heath, owner of a bakery whose travails were the subject of a story this week by Tucson Citizen reporter Carli Brosseau.

Heath bought a small midtown building for his bakery. He anticipated no serious problems because the space had previously been occupied by a bakery.

One of the reasons he liked the building was a walk-in refrigerator that had been added. But that refrigerator has become a major headache.

It was built without proper permits about 10 years ago, and the city has told Heath it must be removed. And because the refrigerator added to the size of the building, more parking also is required.

No one is endangered by this refrigerator. No one would be better off if it is torn down and rebuilt: Heath may lose his livelihood and the city may lose a source of revenue.

It is one thing for the city to be hard-nosed about certificates of occupancy and codes when a new building goes up. But it is another to swoop down on an operating business and impose unexpected requirements.

In cases such as Heath’s, the emphasis must be on safety. Non-conforming uses or structures that pose a danger or health hazard to employees or the public must, of course, be fixed. But common sense must play a role in addressing other violations.

In Heath’s case, there is no need to enforce a requirement for additional parking because of a 10-year-old built-on refrigerator. The refrigerator won’t accommodate additional customers who need places to park.

In many cases, the city is exercising such reasonable judgment. But with a rewrite of the land use code under way, the city should find a way to formally accommodate those businesses that have been safely operating in non-conforming structures.

There must be building, land use and occupancy regulations. But there must also be reason and common sense incorporated.

The goals are not in opposition.

This entry was posted on Saturday, August 16th, 2008 at 12:00 am and is filed under Opinion. Tags for this post: Opinion-World, page-b01, World. You can follow any responses to this entry through the RSS 2.0 feed. Both comments and pings are currently closed.