To generate tons of nonsense lawsuits?
To have people in a state of fear, worried about offending or annoying others?

While in theory it would be great, making that phone call to the police everytime, the old lady is getting on your nerves, or when the kid driving down the street with his radio thumping the bass so loud it shakes the windows, or maybe at work when your demanding boss is starting to annoy you, Or your just having a bad day and everyone is annoying you.

but in reality

The "vamps" or "goths" used to sit at 4th and Main next to the gothic looking facade of a bank long closed.  Loitering used to be illegal, but apparently the cops couldn't do anything about it.

So the law goes into affect, and all the people who were creeped out by the "goths" managed to get them ticketed.  See, their acts had no "useful purpose", as defined by the law.  If they at least had a purpose it would be okay if they creeped people out.  

In the years that Royal Oak has reinvented itself, burned out, and reinvented itself again... the crowd keeps going upscale and the rents keep going up.  People wanted to protect what they felt was their "neighborhood".

Pretty soon they will probably try and add fashion police as well, if your not hip, and up to date on the latest fashion trends, you'll be getting a ticket and spending some time in the slammer.

City Councils get away with this because nobody pays attention.  Nobody opposes it.  City politics is being over-run with busy-bodies.  Their intentions are probably good, but whose going to stop them?  You know the busy-bodies.  They're not just concerned citizens, they're people who got involved because something ticked them off - and they're going to retaliate.  They're going to reform the city into their vision of Eden.

Average voters trust that the city's being ran by the elected and go on about their business.  Average voters don't really watch city council meetings, and will never attend one.  If they read the news, they might see national headlines or read the sports page.  They want to be left alone, and most times ARE left alone.  

There are some "average voters" who like the "sexy" politics.  They get excited to vote every 4 years, and pay attention to national politics, the "sexy" politics, and they care about that even if they can't do anything about it.  Even state-wide politics is kinda sexy.  You can call your State Rep and complain and feel good.  

Local elections and school boards aren't sexy.  Most people are bored by them.  Most of the people who get really involved in City Politics are the busy-bodies.  It's really a shame, because city politics affects the most people, and people have the most direct control.  But the people pushing for this ordinance don't have anyone opposing them.  

Think about it.  Does your city have a "blight ordinance"?  Who enforces it?  Many cities these days have a team of homeowners or city officials who rove the city looking for things that might not "look nice".  There's also another dynamic.  When someone was "wronged" by the city, they get involved.  They want to nitpick their neighbors like they were nitpicked.  City politics shouldn't be this way, and city government should simply be administrative.

The solution is simple.  Be active, be involved, be personable and get support.  The more people you have behind you when you make a stand the better.  If the city won't budge, be sure to remind voters during election season about the stupid, useless rules enacted by the council or mayor.

As a Brighton-area resident for most of my 30 years, that's not what I want to see from my town.

"There is nothing wrong with standards nor forcing out potential undesirables ..."

Crystallnacht?  Nothing wrong with it?  Undesirable .. to Hitler.

I agree with half of what you said though - nothing wrong with "standards."  Absolutely. Standard implies measurability and consistency.  Due process and vagueness doctrine prohibit laws that are not standardizable.  "Annoying" is not a "standard" - "undesirable" is not a standard. Neither, on their face, have the ability to be measured.  

If you want ordinances that prohibit specific actions to raise the standard of a community, you've started on a Constitutional footing (assuming you're standards aren't then in violation of other rights -- for example, prohibiting blacks from a "white-only" drinking fountain was a very precise standard, as would be honestly trying to prohibit political protest outright, but one violates equality and other free speech).  Annoying doesn't even start on a Constitutional footing because the word has no objective meaning.

Most conservatives (and liberals in this case) appreciate a balance between reasonable standards to protect individuals and intrusive standards that burden them.  You're an outlier (I sincerely hope) among any group - I sympathize with your point about standards, but don't find it consistent or balanced.