05/16/2000 Meeting Minutes - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

Council Minutes of 5/16/2000 the best interests of the residents of the City of North Olmsted are served with this type of approach. I think we, as a government tonight, have done our residents a disservice, and I want to make my point perfectly clear. I don't believe the disservice lies with the veto. I don't believe that the disservice lies in the fact that we won't we regulating garage sales in the city. To be honest, people, they're garage sales. Life will go on, we will proceed. But I think the disservice lies, will lie if we continue along this path and treat the legislative process as we have. I'm concerned for the Mayor's office and for Council when we no longer communicate. I think it's time for a little self-evaluation for all of the members involved, myself included. I'll do my part, and I would ask that the members of Council perhaps give consideration to doing the same. With that, I respect the decision of the Mayor. He has exercised his most supreme authority in legislative matters, and although I disagree, I will not vote to reconsider the matter. I voted once. My opinion and my vote is in the record. Madam President, my vote is no." Roll call continued: Nashar, yes, with comment that, since this ordinance was introduced, he has encountered residents who mentioned areas of the city that they believed were the reason for the legislation. There were more than one or two people in the city holding continuous garages sales, and people were not speaking out. They were glad to see that the problem was being addressed. This legislation has been amended in a number of ways such as by eliminating the fee and by changing the hours. He feels that the residents of the city have been let down by this veto. Roll call continued: Kasler, yes; Limpert, no; McKay, no; Miller, yes, with comment, first, thanks to the committee members who did attend the committee meeting. He attended it with several concerns about the ordinance as did at least one member of the media. He found the committee members that were present quite amenable and attentive to his concerns. A best effort was made to address those issues, and in many cases, changed the ordinance so that it would reflect his concerns. He would echo the comments of Mr. Gareau that it's too bad that some people who did have concerns didn't step forward and present those in the committee process. Because had they presented those concerns, he feels confident that either (a) they could have been explained to the person's satisfaction; or (b) changed to the person's satisfaction and that a needed ordinance would have been passed. He too has talked to residents who asked why the legislation is being considered; and, when it was explained, they said they knew of people who held "summer-long" garage sales and indicated they were glad to hear that something is finally being done about the problem. They were glad to hear that finally there was going to be some teeth put into the situation and that the problem could be addressed. It was their hope and confidence that the city leaders would take care of a problem that exists in our community. This is not an overwhelming problem, but it is annoying. It is unfortunate that those who had concerns were not in attendance to express those concerns as they would have been addressed. Roll call continued: O'Grady, no, with comment that it seems like the issue is being debated again and it doesn't seem necessary. On the opposite side of the coin from what's been presented, is the fact that, if a particular community, like the Bretton Ridge development, holds adevelopment- wide garage sale, that counts as a garage sale for every resident in that community. That would mean that, if someone is only allowed to have two garage sales a year, everyone in that development is down to one. Further, if someone violates the rule twice, it would lead to a misdemeanor in the fourth degree with is a criminal offense. That is something that is not appropriate in this case. With regard to Mr. Gareau's comments, they're well 19