Carrollton’s “Blanket Repeal” Ordinance Clause Is Dangerous, Lazy, and Legally Reckless
A deeply troubling pattern is emerging from the Town of Carrollton’s Mayor, Town Council, and Town Attorney—one that should alarm every resident, property owner, and business operator in this community.
New ordinances are now routinely being passed with a sweeping clause that reads, in substance:
“This ordinance repeals any prior ordinance or parts of any prior ordinance that might be in conflict.”
At first glance, this may sound like routine legislative language. It is not. This is a lazy, legally reckless shortcut that avoids the real work of governance: actually reading, comparing, and responsibly amending existing law.
This Is Not How Competent Lawmaking Works
Proper legislative drafting requires:
- Identifying exactly which sections of existing code conflict
- Clearly stating what is being repealed
- Explaining how the new ordinance modifies prior law
- Ensuring there are no unintended legal consequences
Instead, Carrollton’s leadership has chosen a blanket repeal clause that effectively says:
“We didn’t bother to check what this conflicts with—so everything that conflicts is now repealed.”
That is not diligence.
That is not legal precision.
That is not responsible governance.
That is legislative laziness, enabled by an incompetent legal review process.
Why This Is So Dangerous
This approach creates several serious risks:
1. Hidden Repeals
Citizens have no practical way of knowing which laws were repealed unless they conduct their own exhaustive legal analysis. Laws can quietly disappear overnight without transparency.
2. Selective Enforcement
When ordinances are vague and overlapping, enforcement becomes discretionary—and discretion is where favoritism, retaliation, and abuse flourish.
3. Conflicting Laws at the Same Time
If everything “in conflict” is repealed—but nothing is clearly identified—you now create legal uncertainty where two opposing ordinances may both appear valid depending on who is enforcing them.
4. Future Legal Collapse
When challenged in court, these poorly drafted ordinances become vulnerable to:
- Facial invalidation
- Void-for-vagueness challenges
- Due process violations
- Equal protection violations
In short: this is how towns lose lawsuits.
This Is Governance by Shortcut—Not by Law
Instead of:
- Doing the research
- Carefully amending specific code provisions
- Providing clean legislative records
The Mayor, Council, and Town Attorney have opted for what can only be described as a copy-paste escape hatch for bad drafting.
This method:
- Prevents proper public review
- Obscures legislative intent
- Shields officials from accountability
- And guarantees future legal conflict
If this were happening in a private law office, it would be called malpractice.
The Pattern Is Becoming Clear
This is not an isolated drafting error. This is now a pattern of behavior:
- Broad language
- Minimal transparency
- No clear repeal trail
- Poor documentation
- And no meaningful explanation to the public
Worse still, this is happening at the same time Carrollton is passing more aggressive, more intrusive ordinances affecting private property, residency, and personal use of land.
Vague repeal language combined with expanding government control is a dangerous combination—especially in a town where accountability is already in question.
This Will Catch Up With Them
You cannot govern through shortcuts forever.
Eventually:
- Someone will rely on a repealed ordinance without knowing it’s gone
- Someone will be cited under an ordinance that no longer legally exists
- Someone will challenge enforcement in court
- And the entire structure will come apart under judicial review
When that happens, the excuse of “we didn’t know what it conflicted with” will not hold up.
Citizens Deserve Better Than This
Regardless of political views, every resident should agree on one minimum standard:
Local laws should be written clearly, reviewed carefully, and passed transparently.
Right now, Carrollton’s leadership is failing that standard.
Not because it is difficult.
But because they are refusing to do the work.