JUST VOTE NO ON 24 !! More Reasons to reject the Proposed Third Amended Charter
Posted: Sat Nov 04, 2017 2:53 pm
HAS ANYONE READ THE LAME ETHICS PROVISIONS IN THE PROPOSED CHARTER?
PROTECT YOUR RIGHTS AS A PROPERTY OWNER – VOTE NO ON ISSUE 24
The City is urging voters to approve a third amended proposed charter because supposedly it's easier to read and understand, compared to our current charter. That is a matter of opinion. Many believe the proposed charter has done nothing to improve readability or flow; unnecessary legalese remains in the text; and the new ethics requirements touted by the City are lame, and do not go nearly far enough to protect our citizens.
Take a look. The new "Ethics" provision inserted into the proposed charter as Article 8.1, consists of fewer than 600 words! So where's the beef? Among these 591 or so words, I see no mention in the proposed charter's ethics provision of how the City will identify and regulate the problem of municipal officials acting in matters in which they have a personal interest, nor is there any mention of how to address misuse of municipal resources, nor does the proposed Article 8.1 explain how an official interpretation of ethics provision will be obtained or how enforcement will be achieved. Nor is there any mention of disclosure requirements. We need a strong disclosure and recusal provision in our ethics toolbox. The ethics provision does tell us if the mayor is convicted of a felony, Let's tell the City to go back to the drawing board and draft ethics provisions that have some teeth.
Even more troubling, the City has failed to tell voters its proposed charter makes it easier for the City to appropriate your personal private property "for any public or municipal purpose."
Both the current charter (at Article XVII), and the City's proposed charter (at Article Ten), have the "appropriations" clause language, which allows the City to take your property "for any public or municipal purpose." The important difference is: Our current charter has far stronger notice protections to inform property owners of the City's intent to appropriate your property.
Under both the current and proposed charters, once the City has "deemed" it "necessary to appropriate" your "property," Council must "adopt a resolution declaring such intent," and then the Clerk of Council serves an initial notice on the property owner (or person in possession or having an interest in the land or the owner's agent). What happens (or doesn't happen) next is critical.
As shown in the chart (see attachment), Article XVII of our current charter, if the property owner, person or agent cannot be found, notice shall be given by publication once a week for three consecutive weeks in a newspaper of general circulation in the City. Thus, our current charter requires the City to continue attempts to reach a property owner who did not receive the initial notice for an additional three weeks by way of publication. This import protection, which required the City to engage in notification efforts for an additional three weeks, has been eliminated.
Why does the City tout the superficial and insubstantial changes it has made in the proposed charter, without explaining that it has eliminated significant rights afforded to property owners in our current charter?
Reject the Proposed Third Amended Charter until the ETHICS provisions are strengthened and proper notifications are included in APPROPRIATIONS OF PROPERTY.
VOTE NO ON Issue 24.
PROTECT YOUR RIGHTS AS A PROPERTY OWNER – VOTE NO ON ISSUE 24
The City is urging voters to approve a third amended proposed charter because supposedly it's easier to read and understand, compared to our current charter. That is a matter of opinion. Many believe the proposed charter has done nothing to improve readability or flow; unnecessary legalese remains in the text; and the new ethics requirements touted by the City are lame, and do not go nearly far enough to protect our citizens.
Take a look. The new "Ethics" provision inserted into the proposed charter as Article 8.1, consists of fewer than 600 words! So where's the beef? Among these 591 or so words, I see no mention in the proposed charter's ethics provision of how the City will identify and regulate the problem of municipal officials acting in matters in which they have a personal interest, nor is there any mention of how to address misuse of municipal resources, nor does the proposed Article 8.1 explain how an official interpretation of ethics provision will be obtained or how enforcement will be achieved. Nor is there any mention of disclosure requirements. We need a strong disclosure and recusal provision in our ethics toolbox. The ethics provision does tell us if the mayor is convicted of a felony, Let's tell the City to go back to the drawing board and draft ethics provisions that have some teeth.
Even more troubling, the City has failed to tell voters its proposed charter makes it easier for the City to appropriate your personal private property "for any public or municipal purpose."
Both the current charter (at Article XVII), and the City's proposed charter (at Article Ten), have the "appropriations" clause language, which allows the City to take your property "for any public or municipal purpose." The important difference is: Our current charter has far stronger notice protections to inform property owners of the City's intent to appropriate your property.
Under both the current and proposed charters, once the City has "deemed" it "necessary to appropriate" your "property," Council must "adopt a resolution declaring such intent," and then the Clerk of Council serves an initial notice on the property owner (or person in possession or having an interest in the land or the owner's agent). What happens (or doesn't happen) next is critical.
As shown in the chart (see attachment), Article XVII of our current charter, if the property owner, person or agent cannot be found, notice shall be given by publication once a week for three consecutive weeks in a newspaper of general circulation in the City. Thus, our current charter requires the City to continue attempts to reach a property owner who did not receive the initial notice for an additional three weeks by way of publication. This import protection, which required the City to engage in notification efforts for an additional three weeks, has been eliminated.
Why does the City tout the superficial and insubstantial changes it has made in the proposed charter, without explaining that it has eliminated significant rights afforded to property owners in our current charter?
Reject the Proposed Third Amended Charter until the ETHICS provisions are strengthened and proper notifications are included in APPROPRIATIONS OF PROPERTY.
VOTE NO ON Issue 24.