Lawsuit threats table hillside protection ordinance indefinitely
Original post made on Jun 7, 2013
Read the full story here Web Link posted Friday, June 7, 2013, 12:00 AM
on Jun 7, 2013 at 5:56 pm
Good! Even though PP is very poorly and vaguely written, one thing it clearly states is that any changes to it require voter approval. We're probably going to have to start with a better-written and more clear "son/daughter of PP" that is sharp and clear and get whatever that is by the voters. Then the council will have clear room to turn that into specific rules and regulations moving forward.
Too bad PP was such a vague mess in the first place (although I did vote for it)...
on Jun 7, 2013 at 6:06 pm
Chris, of course you voted for it.
PTown = NIMBYVILLE
PP = Private Property confiscation without compensation
on Jun 7, 2013 at 10:06 pm
PP was fairly simple but lawyers will challenge everything. No matter how precise you make an initiative, it is difficult to cover every base. Because of the way the council handled the Oak Grove property, the citizens did not have a lot of time to write an initiative, circulate it, and collect signatures in the legal amount of time.
If the council did its job by coming up with a hillside development ordinance (which the General Plan required) prior to allowing Oak Grove to be heard, there would have been more time for public import and weighing everything and could have avoided a citizen initiative. The council did not do their job, so the citizens had to do something. I am so glad that there are engaged citizens in our community that would put these things together when the council does not do their job, allowing the citizens to directly vote on how they want their city. With the millions of dollars spent on the campaign by developers to try and defeat this, and the citizens still approving it by a wide margin, that should tell the council what the community is looking for.