Laserfiche WebLink
<br />- <br /> <br />"The courts have ruled that there is a protected difference between <br />public and private malls--recognizing that people today want alter- <br />natives in many areas--some prefer to shop and not be annoyed--I feel <br />it inappropriate for this council to change that ruling. <br /> <br />"In summary, then: BECAUSE this amendment infringes on private property <br />rights and I believe the citizens of this community are tired of more <br />government; <br /> <br />"BECAUSE the State and Supreme Court have already ruled this type of <br />action as unconst~tutional; <br /> <br />"BECAUSE we already have the machinery in place in our home rule laws <br />to provide our citizens the protection they need; and <br /> <br />"BECAUSE of the cost to the taxpayers of the city to defend this issue <br />in higher courts; <br /> <br />III EXERCISE MY RIGHT TO VETO COUNCIL BILL 18617." <br /> <br />Ms. Smith moved, seconded by Mr. Lieuallen, that Council Bill <br />18617 be approved. <br /> <br />e <br /> <br />Ms. Miller stated she felt it was unfortunate that the veto message, <br />rather than being directed at the policies behind the law and whether <br />the law was good or bad, was directed at the idea that it was illegal, <br />and the council was trying to do something the Supreme Court had said <br />the council could not do. She feels that is not a fair statement of <br />the law, and the Supreme Court has not ruled on this matter. She felt <br />all that was being said was that the City would not use City resources <br />to prosecute and jail people in certain circumstances. <br /> <br />Mr. Lieuallen agreed with Ms. Miller. He felt that Mayor Keller had <br />shifted the issue. Instead, the Mayor talked about community schodls, <br />swimming pools, and the Library, which clouded the issue. <br /> <br />Ms. Smith stated she is not certain that she heard the message right. <br />She has been led to believe that the City would be in for a fight in <br />court by those opposing the ordinance which would involve using City <br />resources. The council is looking at a lot of other needs for the City <br />right now rather than the defense of an ordinance which is flawed and <br />could be declared unconstitutional. She is not willing to allocate <br />this type of money for this issue. She supports freedom of speech <br />but is concerned about the rights of individuals and freedom of <br />choice. People should have the opportunity to choose the type of <br /> <br />e <br /> <br />5/12/80--3 <br />