Announcements‎ > ‎

Voter suppression? What's your opinion?

posted Oct 11, 2011, 10:12 PM by CFO Info   [ updated Oct 12, 2011, 10:07 AM ]
The article on the left

"Courts, not South Euclid voters, may get last word on Oakwood Commons"

 appeared in the 10/10/11 Plain Dealer Metro section.
 
In indicates that First Interstate may build a big box retail development on Oakwood, even if the referendum is passed.
 
And, even further, it implies that First Interstate will sue if the referendum passes in order to build on Oakwood. The article brings up a case that cost another city millions, and then tells us that case does not apply here....but First Interstate could file a different kind of lawsuit. 
 (Click on picture to enlarge)
Scare tactics.
 
Last count there were 91comments posted on the online version (changed from the print version).
 
Supporters called and emailed us in response to the article. One is filing a complaint with the Secretary of State as he is convinced it is voter suppression. Here are excerpts from 4 emails we received that indicate some people have been convinced their vote doesn't count. Will they still vote?
 
1. nothing like feeling that your vote is meaningless
2. Is it true, that no matter what the vote results are, the courts, not the voters, could determine the outcome?!   That, if true, is very distressing. 
 
3. unfortunately, there IS an Avon Commons, so is it a foregone conclusion…if the vote does not matter, then it seems like all is a waste…don't get me wrong — I am against the big box store development, but so what?
 
4. No matter how you voted you might as well stay home.
 

Most of us judge people on the pattern of their behavior. Not on the basis of one action. We all misspeak and are taken out of context.

But,  First Interstate has a pattern of behavior trying to prevent people from voting. We will illustrate that in upcoming emails.

Here is the first illustration:

“ 'We’re glad to have the opportunity to get going and remove the hurdle of an election', said Mitchell Schneider, First Interstate Properties’ president."

This quote is taken from this Sun News article, reporting on the 8/9/11 South Euclid City Council meeting. At this meeting City Council was deciding whether or not to put the Oakwood referendum on the ballot.

Prior to the meeting, First Interstate filed a protest about the referendum petition, urging City Council to reject the petition.

First Interstate’s protest was based largely on the argument that an emergency ordinance cannot be subject to a referendum.  At that meeting, because of the First Interstate protest, council rejected the petition, refusing to put the referendum on the ballot.

Ultimately, the Ohio Supreme Court ruled that the people of South Euclid should be able to vote on the referendum.First Interstate filed for a reconsideration and the Ohio Supreme Court ruled again in favor of the people of South Euclid's right to vote.

The president of First Interstate considers elections hurdles and the outcome of elections irrelevant.

Should South Euclid voters trust First Interstate to act in good faith or be fair in dealing with them?

What do you think?

Please read the article and let us know if you think First Interstate is engaging in voter suppression.

We don't know all the legal technicalities involved in proving voter suppression and we are interested in your opinions.

THANK YOU.

 

 
Ċ
CFO Info,
Oct 11, 2011, 10:12 PM
ą
CFO Info,
Oct 11, 2011, 10:12 PM
Comments