Last night the Woodstock City Council voted 5-1 to approve a Special Use Permit for Woodstock Christian Life Services that includes the demolition of Grace Hall (subject to one condition that probably won't provide much of a hurdle for them).
Should the Council have voted on this matter last night?
There is a nomination for Landmark status of Grace Hall pending before the City Council. The Woodstock Historic Preservation Commission voted unanimously on November 10, 2008, to recommend Landmark status to the City Council. The City Council would not give immediate attention to the HPC recommendation. Instead, it waited until April 21, 2009, and then quickly tabled that nomination. To date, the Landmark nomination has not shown back up on an Agenda for a City Council meeting.
When the Council was about to vote No on the WCLS petition on April 21, the Mayor handed WCLS and Mark Gummerson an invitation to ask the Council to hold off on a vote until a later date.
Last night City Code Section 7.7.3.1 was read to the Council. "Any person ... may submit an application to the (Historic Preservation) commission requesting that a building ... within the city be designated as a landmark." That application was submitted in proper form to the Historic Preservation Commission.
Like it or not, property rights or not, this is the law in Woodstock.
Furthermore, "Upon nomination (emphasis added) or designation of landmark status, such building ...shall be afforded the protection of the historic preservation ordinance."
Some laws people like, some they don't. But this too is the law in Woodstock. Therefore, when the Historic Preservation Commission approved the motion to recommend landmark designation, Grace Hall moved under the protective umbrella of the historic preservation ordinance. In fact, it may have acquired that protection earlier, when it was nominated for landmark status.
The purpose of the protection is to buy breathing room. It is is demolished, it's too late to say, "OK, it's a landmark."
A Memo from the Deputy City Manager with the packet to the City Council informed them that "A simple majority of the Council is required to approve this motion (to approve the WCLS Special Use Permit, which includes the demolition of Grace Hall.)" The DCM's memo was silent about the pending landmark nomination.
The problem with the "simple majority" sentence is City Code Section 7.7.3.4 (F), which reads "To override a recommendation of the (Historic Preservation) Commission, a favorable vote of three-fourths (3/4) of all elected members of the City Council is necessary."
This is called a "super-majority." A super-majority of seven is 5.25. Because 1/4 of a Council person cannot vote, you have to round that up to a full person, making six (6) the required number of votes needed for a super-majority of the Woodstock City Council.
Although that Section was also read to the Council, it proceeded with its vote and announced that the 5-1 vote carried the motion. One Council member was absent from the meeting, and RB Thompson voted against the Motion. As soon as one present member voted against it, it should have been declared defeated.
The City Attorney explained to me after the meeting that I had made an "interesting" legal argument. And he explained that allowing a minority to control a decision is just not the way a society functions. A majority rules.
He also explained that WCLS was first in line; it requested demolition of Grace Hall (as part of its overall Special Use Permit) before the Landmark nomination petition was filed with the Historic Preservation Commission.
While I didn't read every word in the City Code, I suspect it doesn't say that a property owner remains at the head of the line, if he jumps in the door with a request to tear down what could become a Landmark. It was the WCLS move to demolish Grace Hall that triggered the Landmark nomination, and I'll bet that is exactly what the City Council had in mind in the past when it created City Code Sec. 7.7.3.1.
My continuing question is the City Council (and the entire government in Woodstock) is - What about the City Code? Why do you feel that you can play "three blind mice" (okay, well, seven blind mice) with the City Code?
The City Code is the law in Woodstock. Or is it?
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
13 comments:
This is called a "super-majority." A super-majority of seven is 5.25. Because 1/4 of a Council person cannot vote, you have to round that up to a full person, making six (6) the required number of votes needed for a super-majority of the Woodstock City Council.
Although that Section was also read to the Council, it proceeded with its vote and announced that the 5-1 vote carried the motion. One Council member was absent from the meeting, and RB Thompson voted against the Motion. As soon as one present member voted against it, it should have been declared defeated.
********************
6 members were there to vote, right? That is enough for a legal quorum, correct?
A super majority needs 3/4 or greater votes, right?
5 out of 6 voted for it, more than needed for a super majority. By your logic, it would have had to have been a unanimous vote last night for it to pass? Even you have to agree that is a little much!
DA, please re-reard City Code Section 7.7.3.4 (F), which reads "To override a recommendation of the (Historic Preservation) Commission, a favorable vote of three-fourths (3/4) of all elected members of the City Council is necessary."
It reads "three-fourths (3/4) of all elected members of the City Council". There are seven members of the Council. The City Code does not read 3/4 of all members who are present; it reads 3/4 of ALL.
Every word in a law is important, just as is the absence of a word or phrase. Six votes were required, and there were only five.
I vote to nominate Gus as a historical figure... or a 'relic" of Woodstock. And I will gladly demolish his castle for a mere $131.00, of whch I'll donate to Wayne Beto. I'll also have to ask for a $75.00 surcharge to cover the ticket I'll get for parking illegally on Gus's lawn.
Still waiting for MJ's stash to hit e-Bay... I'd probably have better luck buying some of Sgt Gorski's inventory.
So what you are saying is that one person disagreeing overides 5 others vote. Very democratic of you Gus! I see they paid about as much attention to you as you deserved.
"Thank you Gus for pointing that out to us, all voting yes?....vote passes 5 to one"
The attorney told you it was interesting. did he tell you you were right? No he did not. If he did, he would have stopped the vote and informed them the vote was not valid.
DA, the law is the law. And the City Code is law for the City Council. It's too bad that it could take a court case to make them follow the law.
There is a reason that the City Council in 1996 thought enough of historic preservation to write in a super-majority requirement.
This Council doesn't, as evidenced by its delay in even bringing the Landmark nomination to the Agenda and then tabling it, in order to green-light the demolition of Grace Hall.
Yes, a super majority, not a unanimous vote. You are hanging your hat on a typo/interpretation on your part. By your interpretation, yes, then it would be true. Others obviously interpreted differently, and, in my opinion, rightly, that it is a super majority or all members voting.
According to your interpretation, if one council member was out for an extended period (randomly pick 3 months) for some reason, let us say recovering from a heart attack as an example, then for that 3 months they could not vote at all and overturn anything that was recommended.
That makes no sense at all, does it?
Here is another example. What if 2 members were financially involved in something that needed to be voted on. They would have to recuse themselves from voting, correct? That would create a situation where, by your interpretation, as long as those 2 members were on the council, that vote could never take place and the historic preservation commission's recommendation could NEVER be overturned.
So, go ahead and waste taxpayers time and money going to court. People can and do sue for anything and everything. A judge will look at it and judge it by the spirit as well as the letter of the law. If everything was as black and white as you wish it to be, there would be no need for judges, would there?
DA, the law is as it is. There is no "typo". The absence of punctuation is intentional. If there was an error in the law, then it would have been corrected sometime between 1996 and now.
The law reads "...of all elected members..." It doesn't read, "...of all elected members present..."
And no, not unanimous.
When laws are incorrectly interpreted or applied, sometimes court action is required to correct the wrong. It shouldn't be, but it is. There is nothing unclear in the City Code section under discussion. The language is plain and unambigious.
Perhaps other readers have ideas for how to force the City Council to comply with existing City Code?
How do you know what was intentional or unintentional, Gus? Were you there when it was written? How do you know it would have been corrected into the airtight law that has no room for interpretation that you demand. After all, the whole city council is there to please Gus.
OK Gus. I know you normally only ASK questions and never like to answer them, but how about reading my post again and answering the questions I asked you.
I will even repost it to refresh your memory:
Yes, a super majority, not a unanimous vote. You are hanging your hat on a typo/interpretation on your part. By your interpretation, yes, then it would be true. Others obviously interpreted differently, and, in my opinion, rightly, that it is a super majority or all members voting.
According to your interpretation, if one council member was out for an extended period (randomly pick 3 months) for some reason, let us say recovering from a heart attack as an example, then for that 3 months they could not vote at all and overturn anything that was recommended.
That makes no sense at all, does it?
Here is another example. What if 2 members were financially involved in something that needed to be voted on. They would have to recuse themselves from voting, correct? That would create a situation where, by your interpretation, as long as those 2 members were on the council, that vote could never take place and the historic preservation commission's recommendation could NEVER be overturned.
So, go ahead and waste taxpayers time and money going to court. People can and do sue for anything and everything. A judge will look at it and judge it by the spirit as well as the letter of the law. If everything was as black and white as you wish it to be, there would be no need for judges, would there?
July 24, 2009 11:12 AM
I do have to make a correction in my statement. If, by your inerpretation, 1 member was sick for 3 or more months, then any other member could hold the rest of the board hostage by voting no.
With 1 member gone, to vote with YOUR interpretation of the ordinances, the only way to get it to pass is to get 100% of the rest of the member to vote yes. The fact that you even think this is correct shows you are just reaching for straws.
So again, answer my questions like you demand others do for you. What if 2 members were financially involved in something that needed to be voted on. They would have to recuse themselves from voting, correct? That would create a situation where, by your interpretation, as long as those 2 members were on the council, that vote could never take place and the historic preservation commission's recommendation could NEVER be overturned. What would they do? Wait a few years to vote on it until new members get elected?
Also find it comical that NOBODY is posting on your blog siding with your opinion on this. By the way, I don't really care one way or the other about them tearing it down. Only problem I have is with your opinion on how things SHOULD run. Your way or the hi way, huh Gus?
Gus isn't reaching for straws, or making anything up. If his copy of the law is correct, he is right in this and DA is wrong. As such it is not "his way," it is the law.
And it's not one member overriding the council. A supermajority of six is required to override another group's findings. I don't know how many people serve on the Historic Preservation Commission, but what we're really talking about is six Council members overriding the HPC, not one member overriding the rest of the council.
Maybe Gus isn't answering because he's tired of trying to reason with the unreasonable.
Wow! I post that nobody is defending Gus and by some miracle somebody immediately shows up out of the blue defending him!
It is my understanding that the historic preservation committee is appointed by the council, not elected, correct? So, by that standard, they report to the council their recommendations.
Obviously there are a lot of people that agree with the MAJORITY or the council, including all but one of the council members that were present to vote. Also including the EXPERT, paid by the taxpayers, the lawyer.
Now, I know that Gus considers himself an expert of all things, but the paid expert stated to him that the vote was legal.
What if 2 members were financially involved in something that needed to be voted on. They would have to recuse themselves from voting, correct? That would create a situation where, by your interpretation, as long as those 2 members were on the council, that vote could never take place and the historic preservation commission's recommendation could NEVER be overturned. What would they do? Wait a few years to vote on it until new members get elected?
What if 2 members were financially involved in something that needed to be voted on. They would have to recuse themselves from voting, correct? That would create a situation where, by your interpretation, as long as those 2 members were on the council, that vote could never take place and the historic preservation commission's recommendation could NEVER be overturned. What would they do? Wait a few years to vote on it until new members get elected?
Such a good question, I asked it (again) twice!
DA, thanks for asking your question over and over. It's a good thing I never worked for Sherlock Holmes. I'm just too slow on the uptake.
Now, having read your question several times, I realize that the real question might be, "Which members of the Woodstock City Council, if any, would have to recuse themselves from any vote on Landmark status of Grace Hall due to a conflict of interest?"
Man, so sorry to be so slow to read between the lines here.
If you, or anyone else, has an answer to this (the real?) question, you can post it here or email, fax or phone it to me.
DA, is this really what you have been asking?
The answer to your question, if it is not a leading question (or even if it is), is that the Council would not be able to vote (either way) on Landmark status because there would not be six votes. In the meantime, the nominated property would continue to be under the protection of the historic preservation ordinance.
So they would be unable to vote on something for YEARS because of this? Yeah, I am sure that is what was intended by the spirit of the law, right? Silly me! You do not beleive in the spirit of the law!
Gus said...
DA, the law is the law. And the City Code is law for the City Council. It's too bad that it could take a court case to make them follow the law."
Isn't it funny how you did not feel the same way when you were ticketed by an officer for breaking a traffic law that you freely admit you did? You felt that you did not deserve the citation due to the fact that you only violated the law for a short time, right? Sort of like being a little bit pregnant?
Gus "The Law Is The Law Except For Me" Philbott
By the way, since you are in an answering mood, how about answering the question asked of you dealing with the Chicago squad you reported because "you thought" it was speeding?
Post a Comment