Oh my, oh my, oh my. What an issue.
There's so much to talk about that I'll save most of it for another posting and only talk about one thing right now (I have to leave in 30 minutes for a volleyball game.)
Our two big stories this issue are on the proposed new ordinances for Clark Fork.
Currently Clark Fork has 9 pages of ordinances but, if city council has its way, that's going to increase to a 75 page document.
What a difficult two stories to write. (I wrote one, Jinx wrote the other).
First, I'm impacted by this. If these ordinances are adopted, my property value will likely decrease, because I'll be a non-conforming lot and will be unable to make improvements without becoming conforming. Which I won't be able to do as I don't have the 125 ft of public road frontage required. So I'm not thrilled with some of what's proposed, even though a number of the ordinances are certainly needed.
But I'm less thrilled with the attitudes of city council. I mean, forgive my French, but they're all pissed off 'cause people are upset. And, of course, they're either not happy with me, or won't be when they read our stories. Never a fun place to be in.
But city council needs to pay attention to what the residents of town are saying they want (and don't want) or they're gonna deserve the recall petitions that are already circulating.
Mayor Tommy Shields is one of the nicest guys I've ever met, and I can't believe he would do anything to hurt this community - but he was so un-in-favor of the questions I asked for our story that he told me he didn't think he should talk to me any more without consulting the city attorney. (The Mayor's the go-to guy as far as getting an official statement from the council. Individual council members can only speak for themselves, not for the whole. That's why Tom had to hold the bag on this one.)
I guess I can't blame him because I suggested the council had held illegal meetings. See, I had Jinx go in and request copies of minutes from the meetings where they developed these ordinances. And the city clerk told her (in front of Mayor Shields) that they didn't keep any minutes. Tommy didn't say a word (as in, wait, Jonelle, you're wrong, of course we kept minutes.)
There's so much to talk about that I'll save most of it for another posting and only talk about one thing right now (I have to leave in 30 minutes for a volleyball game.)
Our two big stories this issue are on the proposed new ordinances for Clark Fork.
Currently Clark Fork has 9 pages of ordinances but, if city council has its way, that's going to increase to a 75 page document.
What a difficult two stories to write. (I wrote one, Jinx wrote the other).
First, I'm impacted by this. If these ordinances are adopted, my property value will likely decrease, because I'll be a non-conforming lot and will be unable to make improvements without becoming conforming. Which I won't be able to do as I don't have the 125 ft of public road frontage required. So I'm not thrilled with some of what's proposed, even though a number of the ordinances are certainly needed.
But I'm less thrilled with the attitudes of city council. I mean, forgive my French, but they're all pissed off 'cause people are upset. And, of course, they're either not happy with me, or won't be when they read our stories. Never a fun place to be in.
But city council needs to pay attention to what the residents of town are saying they want (and don't want) or they're gonna deserve the recall petitions that are already circulating.
Mayor Tommy Shields is one of the nicest guys I've ever met, and I can't believe he would do anything to hurt this community - but he was so un-in-favor of the questions I asked for our story that he told me he didn't think he should talk to me any more without consulting the city attorney. (The Mayor's the go-to guy as far as getting an official statement from the council. Individual council members can only speak for themselves, not for the whole. That's why Tom had to hold the bag on this one.)
I guess I can't blame him because I suggested the council had held illegal meetings. See, I had Jinx go in and request copies of minutes from the meetings where they developed these ordinances. And the city clerk told her (in front of Mayor Shields) that they didn't keep any minutes. Tommy didn't say a word (as in, wait, Jonelle, you're wrong, of course we kept minutes.)
Without minutes, it's an illegal meeting.
I called Idaho Rep. George Eskridge about this and asked him to get an opinion from the Attorney General's office. See, if they held illegal meetings there's a question about how they remedy that. The "remedy" under law is they have to go back and do those meetings legally. But what does that mean? They met for a year and a half talking about this. Would they have to meet for another year and a half - legally - to remedy the situation? Or could they do that in one legal meeting?
I called Idaho Rep. George Eskridge about this and asked him to get an opinion from the Attorney General's office. See, if they held illegal meetings there's a question about how they remedy that. The "remedy" under law is they have to go back and do those meetings legally. But what does that mean? They met for a year and a half talking about this. Would they have to meet for another year and a half - legally - to remedy the situation? Or could they do that in one legal meeting?
Well, Tommy didn't like me pointing that out to him, I guess. And he responded that minutes were certainly kept of every meeting they have. He didn't offer any explanation of why we were told no minutes were taken.
I got this email from him on Sunday around noon, and I told Jinx we had to be there first thing on Monday morning to get minutes - because every cynical bone in my body (which is most of them) didn't like this inconsistency.
9 am on Monday and... there was a note on the door that City Hall was closed. I heard the clerk was sick. I don't know if that's true or not, but the crud is certainly going on.
By Tuesday morning they had minutes (I was told), though when requested they said it would take a few days to provide them.
I'm not feeling really good about this.
If there are good reasons for each and every one of those new ordinances (and I would expect that to be the case for most of them) then the council shouldn't hesitate to be willing to explain to the public just what those reasons are. There's no way the public will support new ordinances without an understanding of why they're necessary. I had hoped to get some of that information for our article, but the response from the Mayor was that ordinances were selected based on what the council felt would be good for Clark Fork. I asked a second time for any objective criteria that had been used, but by then the Mayor wasn't talking to me anymore. And the Mayor is the designated 'voice' of city council.
Anyway.... check out our supplementary blog on the ordinances (www.cforkord.blogspot.com) and see what you think about what's proposed. And we'll keep you posted on the other end of this.
Anyway.... check out our supplementary blog on the ordinances (www.cforkord.blogspot.com) and see what you think about what's proposed. And we'll keep you posted on the other end of this.
(This posting was modified from the original in order to clarify a few points.)