Announcements‎ > ‎

Here's what 4 Oakwood supporters have to say about tonight's public hearing

posted Aug 8, 2011, 9:39 AM by CFO Info   [ updated Aug 8, 2011, 11:17 AM ]
You people are so much fun we couldn't keep you to ourselves!

The following are 4 responses we received from Oakwood supporters about tonight's public hearing on Ord. 74-2011.

Oakwood Supporter #1 says: Question:  Is this ordinance intended to apply ONLY to the former Coventry School building?
 
Question:  Or could it have implications for other property, like that portion of land on the former Oakwood Country Club that lies in Cleveland Heights?
 
Question:  Is my understanding correct, that if this ordinance passes it is not subject to a referendum because of its 'emergency' status?
 
Question:  If the need to declare it an 'emergency' is because of the need to meet the schedules of the businesses intending to open and operate in the former Coventry School building, should not the ordinance be written in such a way as to make clear that the ordinance only applies to the former Coventry School building?
 
Question:  Why declare an emergency to meet the schedules of the businesses who are only intending to open and operate in the former Coventry School building.  What commitment do we have of their intentions?  What's the rush?  Has anyone declared an immediate need for occupancy?
 

 Oakwood supporter #2 says:

"A review of the state code, ORC 731.30, and case law, State ex rel . Laughlin v James, 115 Ohio St. 3d 231  (2007) and State ex rel. Webb v Bliss, 99 Ohio St. 3d 166 (2003), indicates the City must set forth the specific reasons for the classification of the ordinance as an emergency. "Purely conclusory, tautological, or illusory language . . . fails to meet the ORC 731.30 requirements for a valid emergency ordinance."  Webb at 1106.    Courts frown on a council's expression of generalized reasons for the emergency designation that could then be applied to any zoning change.  Further, generalized reasons of justification may be construed by courts as an attempt by a council to innoculate the proposed ordinance from review by referendum.  Section 7 of the ordinance proposed for public hearing tonight probably meets the judicial criteria laid down by specifically providing as it's reason for emergency designation the schedules of businesses intending to operate in the former Coventry School building. This does not preclude Council from later proposing another specific ordinance predicated on an expressed emergency pertaining to the clubhouse at Oakwood.  The ordinance under review tonight, however, cannot be so applied as it is specifically targeted at Coventry School."

Oakwood supporter #3 says: 

I just read the proposed measure to be discussed August 8.  How you can construe some connection, even remotely, to the Oakwood situation from this is beyond me or any sense of reason.  To create such a rumpus about this will make those of us who are concerned about Oakwood look like a bunch of paranoid hysterics.

Oakwood supporter #4 says
Hi, just to let you know that I agree that this is probably an end run.
And to suggest in future that you include as a note or sidebar to your requests for written input that you post these addresses in a way to make the email process quicker.


Don't you think Oakwood is lucky to have such a varied, hard-thinking, concerned and smart bunch of supporters?

THANK YOU AND SEE YOU TONIGHT!


Twitter: Citizens for Oakwood
Comments