08/23/1976 Meeting - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

< deny that one man a vote, Creating good neighborhoods includes everyone, he said, Trying to eliminate certain segments because of property ownership, he said, e seemed hardly justified, He felt the input from neighborhood groups had been very good; the fact that two of the groups precluded nonresident property owners ,-' from participating had not changed the net result in that regard. Mr, Keller continued that the complaint seemed to be against "large property owners" but he couldn't think of too many places in the city where that could happen, Develop- ment of a large tract of land would give only one vote, and to say that that vote can be registered in testimony before the Council fails to recognize that all have that right, property owners as well as residents; that point was important, he thought. Mr. Keller said it went back to the point of denying the righ4 and perhaps the obligation, to vote of one person owning maybe four houses and pro- viding housing in a particular neighborhood just because that person does not live there himself. He said he would vote in favor of the amendment. Councilman Haws commended those speaking for their presentations, He didn't agree With Mr, Keller, saying that adoption of the Planning Commission's amendment would be a step backward. What came from the ad hoc committee, he said, was a compromise and something that everyone could work with. Imposing viewpoints on neighborhood organizations would create hard feelings, and he didn't think the Council would want that relationship. He proposed adoption of the ad hoc committee statement unchanged. Mr. Murray moved second by Mr, Haws to delete the revision proposed by the Planning Commission in Section l-c, "...or nonresident property owners...," and adopt the balance of the proposed policy statement as recommended by the Commission in its August 9, 1976 official report, Councilman Bradley wondered if a joint meeting with the Commission would be appro- e priate in view of the divergence of opinion. He said he didn't know whether other - material had been submitted to the Commission which the Council may not have had. Councilm~n Murray pointed out that there was one member of the Commission on the ad hoc committee. Also, action on this organization policy review had been de- layed considerably, working around schedules of Council members, He felt further delay was not merited. Vote was taken on the motion as stated. Motion carried - Council members Haws, Murray, Bradley, and Shirey voting aye; Council members Keller and Hamel voting no. Resolution 2554 - Revision of Neighborhood Organization Policy as amended was read by number and title, Mr, Keller moved second by Mr, Haws to adopt the resolution as amended. Rollcall vote. Motion carried, all Council members present voting aye. F. Appeal, Denial of taxi license - Terry D. Miller Appeal of Terry D. Miller on Rejection of Taxi License Comm Manager noted that a hearing is being requested by the party involved. 8/18/76 Mr~. Beal moved seconded by Mr. Murray to call a public hearing Pub Hrng for August 23. Motion carried unanimOUSly. e Assistant Manager explained that a temporary license to drive a taxi had been ,- issued during the review process on the license application. Upon denial of the application, the appeal had been filed by the applicant. Assistant Manager noted receipt of correspondence from Ms. Miller by the Council, 8/23/76 - 6 Li~