10/09/1972 Meeting - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

agreed,' and said further an amendment of this nature is not the proper way for ex- pression of citizens' concern since it would probably halt all construction of streets or highways, or subject them to challenge in the courts. He said the iCouncil should take a strong stand that this measure be defeated. __ ~'~.!Mrs. Campbell said she felt the measure was initiated because of frustrations felt { by the public with regard to alignment of H~ghway 126, and that she would take no position until she knew more about the recourse of the public in trying to accom- plish their goals. Mrs. Beal said she realized the difficulty in administering a Charter amendment of ;this type and hoped for increased emphasis on impact studies in attaining social ! . and economic goals with ample opportunity for public hearing. She wondered whetherl ~a substitution of some kind could be made which would achieve the aims desired by I the proponents, yet not tie the hands of the City. Steve Hewitt, attorney speaking for the sponsoring group, said they do not feel the proposed Charter amendment is as restrictive as suggested, and that the Council has a biased point of view. He said the sponsors had in mind ramp-type expressways which would apply only to freeways, not every City street. He said interpretations, of both the Council and the sponsoring group would carry a great deal of weight in 'the courts if the courts were not sure which way to decide. He doesn't think the i courts would apply the restriction to every curb cut. And he feels the amendment would not require voter approval of every phase. Once the route is approved, that : is the determination, and the project could proceed. He doesn't feel the one-year I <'_ time limit will be a problem since most of the projects are State constructed in __ agreement with the City, and all that is required is voter approval prior to sign- ing any agreement. So far as representati ve government and the argument that citizens should not vote on everything, he said location of freeways is important to living environment, housing patterns, etc., and that people are informed enough to be able to vote on issues that directly affect them. I .Mayor Anderson tqok exception to Mr. Hewitt's statement that the Council's position I is based on any particular bias. He said it is not right to make the accusation i . in light of the Council's trying to arrive at a legal instrument. through proper I channels to give some meaning and information. He said he personally would like to' see the sponsors of the measure draw back and get informed legal advice on how fcharter amendments are developed and examine the problems encountered by the Pub- ;lic Works Department in developing projects and, if it is then determined of suffi- 'cient importance, to come back wi th a measure to be submi tted to the voters. He said he does not think this particular measure Will accomplish what is wanted, that the City'will1?e,~ealing with individualsJTl_.tfle~ut.u~~ who..wil}. _~antto use it for their own purposes. Further, the Ci ty could be subjected to some severe ,problems from the standpoint of delay. Mr. Hewitt repeated his contention that the measure would apply only to freeway- type construction. He said the City could go ahead with its interpretation, the .~' :proponents with theirs, then let the courts decide, if it is enacted,'on what. is meant by freeways, throughways, etc. Mr. Anderson said he could not support any legislation which he felt might be Subject to change. He cited problems encountered iwith a recent Charter amendment having to do with collective bargaining because of ,its not being explicit. j Mr. Etter said that in legislative drafting it is encumbent upon the draftsmen who I do not have defini te meanings of terms used in law to make clear those terms, and that Mr. Hewitt's suggestion to let the courts decide on interpretation would I testify to the amendment's ambiguity. He said it is true the amendment requires voter approval, but the point to be recognized with regard to the one-year limita- tion is that if the planning and negotiation process goes even one day beyond a year, then another election is necessary. Manager called attention to three law suits to settle interpretation on collective : bargaining and another one recently filed because of different interpretations by : : di fferent people of the loosely wri tten Charter amendment. He disagreed wi th the :argument that the public has not had opportunity for input with regard to limited i 'access construction. He said strong opposition stopped the Pearl Street express- way and some ESATS proposals and at the present time nothing is being built in the way of needed traffic facilities. He said flow charts on State highway projects . indicate now B~ years between initiation and completion. Flow charts have not been i prepared for the City but many of these traffic facilities are involved with the _ Highway Department. In the long run, he said, the only workable procedure is that ! the Council have authoYity to make the final decision. : I Mr. Bradshaw moved seconded by Mr. Teague to oppose the proposed Charter amendment ' .Ln j tS--Rresent fQ..I:..I!i,---- _ __ ____ I .------ -_. --.-~~____..__._J c:< 97 10/9/72 - 5