|
<br />'-\
<br />
<br />'Mayor Anderson commented on the unworkability of the present law and predicted that
<br />regardless of court tests, legal procedures, etc., this amendment would be eradica'ted .
<br />: in time because it is so poorly written. He .had no quarrel with the intent that
<br />I voters have an opportunity to-determine traffic patterns, environmental factors, etc.,
<br />,but he felt everyone would benefit from immedi.ate resolution of the issue rather
<br />than delay and risk costly litigation as well as lack of service to the public.
<br />I Mr. Anderson suggested exploration of alternatives to clarify the amendment but
<br />: expressed the opinion that the Council has to take the lead with whatever input
<br />is available from both the proponentS and the public.
<br />
<br />I.,
<br />
<br />COuncilman Nurray was concerned that there seeme(J to be a feeling that joipt;. con-
<br />sideration of the problems by City and the proponents Would not result in a: workable
<br />law; he felt it 5(as voter intent that a joint effort be made. Mayor Ander~on' replied
<br />' that to the contrary he f,eels the parties can reach, a workable situation; bu,t as
<br />the matter now stands it is unworkable, and withou't significant changes a muph more
<br />controversial situation will result. Councilman Hershner had no objection to the
<br />al ternative of' finding substitute legislation.if;"i.t,''W,oUl-d,resql,ve, the.,technical and
<br />interpretive probl ems . However , the intent of ~iii~':)fldl;;~:Pn,(:'wa:Eht~: ,cy~'c;e.+.i tigation
<br />for which research would be a primary step. Mrs .c:BEiiitiji:e.a9#~'i.~~d ;,t!Je:~~c~i.c~l and
<br />procedural lJroblems encountered in attempting to work' undelJ'"It-h~ ',amendment and fel t
<br />that nothing could be done toward a solution of those problems 'Without the legal
<br />research. But s~~,fel t concept of planni~g. and ~esigning thoroughfares 1!a~ not ''-
<br />'changed with the change in attitudes of the people of the city. She said ahe would
<br />: vote against the mot.ion to commence ~litigation because she felt that should be the
<br />final step. Prior to that action, there should be complete legal research and
<br />:possibly a substitute Charter amendment.
<br />
<br />I Ralph Al,dave, attorney, said the Council was making a decision without hearing from
<br />, the proponents. Mayor Anderson noted that action taken at this time would be un-
<br />'official and in the nature of giving direction for some resolution. He added that
<br />' there IllOllld ,be opportuni ty for statements from proponents at the formal COuncil
<br />meeting.
<br />
<br />,"
<br />
<br />Gomm
<br />3/28/73
<br />Appove
<br />
<br />, Vote was taken on the mqtion as stated.
<br />'voting aye, except Mrs. Beal, voting no.
<br />
<br />Motion carri-ed'/ all oouncilmen present
<br />
<br />,,:1:'::\
<br />
<br />tI'
<br />
<br />Ralph Aldave, 4150 Pearl Street, referred ta the Freeway Amendment and said
<br />its purpase ta all'aw citizen decisian an the raute ,of any limited access
<br />I route was praper, t:hat voters are entirely 'campetent to decide whether
<br />\ alternate rautes are something ta be desired. He said thase peaple speak-
<br />' ing against the amendrtJent, appear not willing to get to work because they
<br />I are against the 'principle. He did not feel there w~s ambiguity in the
<br />I language with regard ta: definition ,of "freeways," thraughways," etc.,
<br />I and added that access ta a street is a praperty right and cannat be
<br />taken away withautcampensation. The amendment in his view really speaks
<br />I ta contralled ,or limited rqutes ta which abutting properties do nat, have
<br />',access. With regard to questians raised abaut cantr~cts facilitiating
<br />canstruction, Mr. Aldave said the purpase ,of the amendment is ta prevent'
<br />I the Stat,e:or Federal gavernment fram building freeways thraugh the City
<br />I until that.questian has been decided,upan by the vaters; uritilthere is a
<br />vate the City cauld nat enter inta an agreement far any such canstructian.
<br />Far no ather purpose is the amendment intended than ta prevent any limited
<br />or contralled access raute until determined by citizens, ,of the cammunity.
<br />He could nat see the reasan far warry abaut delay which wauld be caused by
<br />this requirement since in ,his viewpaint this type raute is seldpm canstructed.
<br />Mr. Aldave cantinued that the City wauld have ta attempt canstructian ,of
<br />such a limited ,or contralled access raute in ,order ta,get a Court ,opinion
<br />an'the amendment since caurtsda nat hand dawn advisary apinians. He sug-
<br />gested that rather than criticizing it. , Mr. Aldave said 0.e wauld be willing
<br />ta wark with City in an attempt ta salve any sartaf prablem presented in
<br />this regard.
<br />
<br />Scott Barlett, 3145 Partland Street, thqught any fundamental change in the
<br />amendment shauld came from another vate ,of ,the peaple.
<br />
<br />Councilman Murray favared the cancept ,of the Freeway amendment and said he
<br />did not share, the reservatians with regard ta its terminalogy and ambiguities.
<br />He said its intent was made clear fram the beginning. Mr. Murray thiriks
<br />there is canfusian about the ,order of events r'equired by the 'amendment and
<br />he said that was ,one ,of the primary reasans far pursuing further research.
<br />He added that in cammittee discussion it was made clear that the matian wauld
<br />not preclude an attempt ta seek'clarificatian with praponents in a frinedly
<br />manner befare initiating any litigatian. And that the matter will came back
<br />to this Council befare there is ini tiatiQn: p-r. -any'~:l~Gigatian.
<br />
<br />-
<br />.~
<br />
<br />o
<br />
<br />\04
<br />
<br />,4/9/73 - 7
<br />
|