11/12/1974 Meeting - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

,ing in the meetings, they would be ex-eluded -only'froiri-voBng-'c;n-'specific-lssi.](2~'.-'-' , The organization felt it important that any recommendations coming to the Planning , Commission or the Council from that neighborhood should come as an expression of ~the residents there. He added that the final draft of the proposed charter was ap- ~ :proved with only two dissenting votes. ., , J ,Councilman Murray thought it would be better to extend voting privileges to all people, in the neighborhood, including absentee property owners, saying it would probably be ; more profitable in the end to the neighborhood itself. However, he recalled that in considering recognition of another neighborhood organization charter this issue 'was brought up and the Council did not insist on voting requirements for other than ;residents. He felt it inappropriate to require it in this charter and not in others. :'Councilman Williams agreed that exclusion of commercial enterprises could invite un- :necessary polarization. He noted, however, that the charter was not in conflict with! . the guidelines for recogni tion of neighborhood groups. He wondered if it would be i appropriate to modify the voting requirements in the overall guidelines. Mr. Murray ;felt that might be a good subject for discussion between the city and those involved' ; :in neighborhood groups. I :Councilman Keller thought that the exclusion of nonresidents trom voting totally dis- )regarded the people attending the University. Robert Rice, provisionsal chairman of 'WUN, said that restricting voting requirements did not constitute total exclusion. ~ ,Those directly involved in the neighborhood, either absentee property owners or in- 1 stitutional organizations, had been invited and would continue to be invited to par- .1' [ticipate in the meetings. There was no, intent to polarize interests in the area, he 1 e said; rather, to express the feelings of the residents of the neighborhood. He added 'that it was somewhat a "procedure matter" - it would be difficult to determine how ;many members should represent a business or organization and it was felt better that '. :they act on an advisory basis. ,Councilman Keller appreciated the problems involved in percentages of representation I, '. ,but he wondered what kind of atmosphere would be created say if Sacred Heart Hospi tal ~(:" :required half a city block for additional parking and the neighborhood organization made a decision against it without any representation from the Hospital. Dr. Rice :answered that it was understood the neighborhood organizations acted in an advisory icapacity only and any such action would be letting the Council know that the residents, :of the neighborhood were 'opposed. But to assume the neighborhood would oppose a ' , / :proposal from any given organization, he said, would be to assume a polarization ~/ that might not exist. ~ > .. - . Manager re-emphasized staff concern about whether limitation on voting privileges really provided the type of representation the Council anticipated when deciding neighborhood organizations should have recognized spokesmen for a geographical area. He said if a neighborhood was to be represented only by residents of an "area, that should be recognized by the Council as being an association which only partly repre- \ ~ sented neighborhood interests. Its advice would have to be taken in that context in \ ., the process of developing neighborhood plans containing items having a profound ef- ,fect on not only the residents of the neighborhood but also upon institutional and ~ business facilities. He felt that process would begin to dilute the original intent ;of the n~ighborhood policy of having neighborhood spokesmen as distinguished from : other pressure groups. ;An unidentified member of WUN said that one issue leading to the organization's de- I cision to exclude certain people from voting was the consU tuional right of "one person" : one vote." He said a land owner could own more than 'one piece 'of property in the area, or could own property in more than one association, which would give that person the iright to more votes. ~Councilwoman Beal felt any issue would be more strongly influenced if absentee property 'owners as well as residents of an area were included, considering the transient popula- , tion in apartment houses, etc. However, she felt no major planning decision would ,be made without consulting with Sacred Heart, the university, Northwest Chiistian iCollege, etc., and the representation of residents through WUN would give input just [as important as that from the land owners. I Mrs. Beal moved seconded by Mr. Murray to approve the West University 'Comm ~ i Neighbors charter as presented. Motion carried, all Council members 10/30/74" i present voting aye, except Councilman Keller voting no. Approve ) Councilman Williams wondered about amending the organization policy guidelines. He : agreed with Manager's position that organizations or businesses which clearly were :part of an area should have the same opportunity as residents of the area to vote in neighborhood organizations. Councilman Murray said when the neighborhood policy '383 11/12/74 - 8