|
Council Minutes of 5/2/2000
<br />~~, community. You should know that this type of submitting of input, request of input in
<br />advance of introducing legislation is not all that common. From that, I received several
<br />responses in support but I didn't receive any real concerns on the part of any members of
<br />Council. With that, the legislation was introduced shortly thereafter. Before
<br />introduction, however, we had contacted several other communities to see how did they
<br />address this type of problem if it exists somewhere in their neighborhood. At least five
<br />communities, Rocky River, Strongsville, Brook Park, Fairview Park and Westlake
<br />responded to our inquiry. Some of these communities have regulated these types of
<br />activities for 20 years, some more than that. The legislation proceeded and again several
<br />concerns were submitted by residents and some from my colleagues on Council. I will
<br />say that each suggestion was considered very heavily, and weighed, and many of those
<br />suggestions were incorporated into the ordinance. I did receive some correspondence
<br />from an individual who intimated that maybe it's not a big enough problem to do
<br />anything about it. Which leads me to believe that there somehow needs to be a requisite
<br />number of complaints from residents before this governments acts to address those
<br />concerns. In my opinion, this is not an appropriate standard. The question, as it has
<br />always been, is one of whether or not the matter is within the legitimate governmental
<br />health, safety and welfare. At least five other communities believe that this type of
<br />regulation is appropriate, that is, regulating sales within residential neighborhoods is
<br />appropriate and preserves the community. And I agree with those five other
<br />communities. I believe the threshold, establishing a threshold minimum number of
<br />complaints before acting is simply not a good idea, and I find it inappropriate to tell a
<br />resident who addresses his Councilperson, his or her Councilperson, that you should
<br />perhaps go out and round up another five, six, seven, may fifteen, maybe twenty people
<br />who will listen to what you have to say and actually take it seriously. I don't believe
<br />that's an acceptable standard, and I don't think many people on Council and the
<br />administration do either. I would suggest that we breathe life into the administration's
<br />motto of 'Together We Can Make A Difference' and for the residents, whether they be
<br />one, five, ten or fifteen, we actually do something and pass this legislation and put it into
<br />place. I vote yes." Roll call continued: Nashar, yes; Limpert, no, with comment. "I
<br />think this ordinance has some merit to it, but I think we could do just a little better and I
<br />expect, if it does not pass this evening, we will be revisiting a similar again. Thank you."
<br />Roll call continued: Kasler, yes; McKay, no, with comment. "There are a couple of
<br />things that I disagree with. One is the restriction of hours and the other is the burden of,
<br />when a homeowners' association has a garage sale, that each person in that area is
<br />charged with one sale whether he attends or not. And I just don't believe that's fair.
<br />Thank you." Roll call continued: Miller, yes; O'Grady, no, with comment. "I'm
<br />uncomfortable with the concept. Specifically, the aspect that causes me the greatest
<br />discomfort is the fact that with the second offense, we're talking a misdemeanor in the
<br />fourth degree. It's a, it's just hard for me to justify in my mind giving a resident of the
<br />City of North Olmsted a criminal record based on two garage sales. No." The motion
<br />passed with four affirmative votes and three negative votes. Ordinance No. 2000-23
<br />adopted.
<br />
<br />13
<br />
|