Tuesday, January 12, 2010
Inaugural 2010 St. Marys City Council meeting went well.
Mayor Deloughy did a good job presiding. There were a few nervous missteps, but he'll be fine. He runs a much tighter ship than his immediate predecessor. There were several anti-airport move soreheads who showed up loaded for bear and bent upon lecturing the new mayor and council. Deloughy set them straight quickly when they attempted to veer into ad hominem nastiness. Bird and Howell will clearly be allied for the next four years(well, two anyway) as the "loyal opposition." Bird, realizing he is hopelessly outgunned, has now adopted a sort of passive - aggressive approach to trying to torpedoe the move. As he goes about trashing the idea, about every third sentence out of his mouth is along the lines of "I don't have any problem with moving the airport." Councilwoman Hase asked the city attorney for a legal opinion on the question of how council should treat FBO Jeff Stanford's application to be appointed tothe Airport Commission. Atwood advised against it. Council voted unanimously to strike his name from the list. Some fellow ( I forget his name -somebody help me out) who had been on the Airport Commission for years and apparently wanted to stay on it was not reappointed by council. The incorrigible exhibitionist, Barbara "Delta Dawn" Ryan, carried on about what a terrible thing it was not to have reappointed the guy. You would have thought that it rose to the level of the "Saturday Night Massacre" of Archibald Cox. Finn's got their liquor license. I told y'all so when it was first denied. Fortunately, the fellow did not sue for damages which he would have surely won. When the vote came, as expected, Hase and Howell allowed their personal, religiously based prejudices to cause them to shirk their sworn duties to "Render unto Caesar that which is Ceasars" and vote to deprive the applicant of his Constitutional rights in spite of the city attorney's advice to the contrary. I'm sure that part of their rationale was that they would not prevail and therefor the man would get his license, they would make points with their theocratically oriented constituents, and there would be no harm-no foul. But what if two more council persons had done the same thing and denied the man his rights? Would Hase' and Howell's votes then be more or less odious? I contend that they are equally odious and irresponsible irrespective of the ultimate outcome of the vote. Please people: council meetings are serious, legal, civic proceedings, not tent revivals.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
13 comments:
Jay, I have read your commentary on last night's meeting. You and I go back a long way and you know that I am not going to "leave my bible at home" as you put it in a previous blog, because it is in my heart and mind,and it goes with me everywhere. However, we have always been able to "agree to disagree". For that I thank you because it results in good discussion.
I must tell you that you are off base on why I voted the way I did on the Finn's issue. It was not for "religious"reasons. I have voted to issue licenses before, and you know that.
As you know there was much citizen input at the public hearing that was held regarding the issuing of this license months ago. First and foremost, I listen and take seriously the concerns of citizens especiaaly when it comes to the type of neighborhoods they want to have. Historically public hearings have been for that purpose--to have input from the neighborhood. If we get to the point where we can't have the neighborhoods we want, free from the potential negative atmosphere of controlled substances like alcohol, etc, then we have disgressed too far. Those people want a nice neighborhood,and I want them to have it.
We listen when citizens tell us how they feel about trees, voting, etc., and we should certainly listen to them about this. Sometimes there is nothing we can do, but sometimes there is.
As you know, We are working on the alcohol ordinance because it has some problems, but that is for the future.
Having said that, Another issue I have is the way the distance requirements are done. Our ordinance is ambiguous, in my opinion. There was more than one way to measure the distance between the church and the store. On one measuring the church fell within the requirements, and too close to the store. Thus, my vote to deny, along with the citizen input. Those are the two main reasons for my decision.
Finally, thanks for having a blog that is informative and not filled with junk. I can blog with you because you are not hidden behind a mask of anonymity and cowardness, although I can't do it often due to the time it takes.
I've said my peace, now have a great day, and see you next time at the "Show that never ends" in St Marys. I declare, if it were not for St Marys' politics, the local paper would probably have to shut down. I guess you could say it is good for the economy???
Deb Hase
My feeling is that if the applicant is in full compliance with the application requirements; has a location for his business in an area that is zoned for a liquor store or bar; and is outside of the ridiculous (as they now stand) distance requirements from a church,school etc., then the subjective preferences of the neighbors in the nearest residential zone should never ever trump the 14th Amendment rights of the applicant per se, and the property rights in particular.
Now, once the license is granted, if he runs his business in such a way as to create a public nuisance, then off with his head.
Oh, and by the way, your decisions should of course be shaped by your morality (irrespective of its's putative source). In this instance, granting the man the license was clearly the legally mandated thing to do (per your attorney) and, I would contend, the moral thing to do.
Ambiguity in the wording of the current alcohol ordinance regarding the methodolgy of measuring distances is not now and never was a valid reason to vote against the applicants rights. Less than optimal draftsmanship in the ordinance was not the appicant's fault.
My my a spat between joined at the hips Moreno and Hase. Voting for her own self interest is nothing new. Wny would you expect any thing different. Up holding the oath of office to support city ordiances is just one of those little things that Hase puts on back burner from time to time.
Yeah, that hip joining was really a bitch with my being in a wheelchair.
"You and I go back a long way and you know that I am not going to "leave my bible at home" as you put it in a previous blog, because it is in my heart and mind,and it goes with me everywhere."
ALL I WANT TO KNOW FROM COUNCILWOMAN HASE IS:
WHERE IS THIS BIBLE WHEN YOU'RE NEGOTIATING AGAINST THE CITIZENS FOR THE BENEFIT OF A DEVELOPER THAT HAS PROMISED YOU THE POSITION OF EXCLUSIVE AGENT?
Jay,
I must say I agree with you 100%. It is time the bibles are left at home. This uninformed quote from Ms. Hase says it all. “free from the potential negative atmosphere of controlled substances like alcohol” (sic). I did not know alcohol was a controlled substance. Cocaine, meth, heroin, and the like are a controlled substance. Alcohol is a legal drink, not a controlled substance. I have lost even more faith in Ms. Hase’s ability to represent the majority of her constituency. My guess is she will not make it in the next election.
Anno #23
No worries, Hase will NEVER receive exclusive agent of the many subdivision slated by Sea Island. Why? Because come January 31, 2010 the people who made her these promises will no longer have ownership of the land.
To Ms. Hase,
To avoid misinterpretation and disagreement about the distance requirements, the ordinance requires a survey and written decision by a licensed surveyor. The applicant provided the survey which indicated that the proposed liquor store met the requirements as to distance from a church. Since all other requirements were legally satisfied, you, as a representative of the voters and sworn to uphold the law, had no choice but to grant the license.
I attended all of the meetings where this matter was discussed. At those meetings, you insisted that you had the right to arbitrarily deny the application based on your moral judgment and your own interpretation of the distance requirements. The City Council was advised by the city attorney, in open meeting, that you did not have the right to deny the application if the applicant satisfied all legal requirements of the ordinance.
At last Monday's meeting, the Council reversed their vote and granted the application. They did so under advise of the city attorney that, if you continued to unlawfully deny the application, the city would be sued and would almost certainly lose.
The citizens elect the council members to manage and operate the city based on the laws and ordinances in place. While I agree that the ordinance needs revision and clarification, this does not relieve you, as a sworn public official, of the responsibility of upholding and applying the law as it is presently written.
Very well siad. I agree with you 100%.
everyone should read a bible,its the lords word. even in bible wine was not a sin. as i think i understand jay. if the store misuses the license then pull them.
i dont see any problem with drinking, in moderation and no driving. but the bible is not just for home and church.
sp
We are a secular democratic republic - not a theocracy. If one's religious beliefs are such that one cannot obey the law while legislating, then perhaps one should not run for office.
Post a Comment