July 14, 2008: South Euclid City Council Meeting - The most significant piece of business at Monday’s council meeting pertained to Ordinance 65-05 – “Point-of-Sale” – Council President Moe Romeo and Ward 3 Councilman Ed Icove were clearly the proponents of some form of modification to the “point-of-sale” legislation. After much deliberation between the council members, some of whom it appeared had no idea that the others intended to completely rescind or repeal Ordinance 65-05, Romeo and Icove withdrew their motions to reconsider "point-of-sale" and the matter was left for discussion at the next meeting on July 28.
During the open session of council, residents who both oppose and support this legislation urged Council to keep the matter on the November ballot by not rescinding the legislation. Several residents questioned Law Director Michael Lograsso on specific legal issues surrounding the upcoming vote and the possibility of Ordinance 65-05 being repealed. Mr. Lograsso was woefully unprepared to provide any solid answers to either the public or City officials. At one point when the Law Director appeared annoyed and put out by repeated questioning by resident Yacov Lieber, Council President Moe Romeo stepped in to offer his best assessment of the situation.
Council members Sunny Simon and Jane Goodman both strongly expressed their continued support of “point-of-sale.” Both Ruth Gray and David Miller requested more information from the administration, primarily the building/housing department.
Mayor Georgine Welo made a statement in which she indicated that she did not approve of Ordinance 65-05:
“…I will tell you that everything that you want is in the codified ordinances book. There’s no doubt about it. I agree with Yakov Lieber. Everything is in that book that we can use as a tool. The problem has been we never had anyone to administrate it…”
“…I will tell you as mayor, the housing stock is moving very well. Real estate agents are coming in regularly to speak to us. We’re outshining our neighbors and it’s not as bleak as you think it is. We’ve actually made a turn, there’s days we don’t have any foreclosures. I don’t know, so maybe what we need to do is see how many houses really have sold…”
It is perplexing that if the Mayor does not agree with the highly controversial legislation, why she did not exercise her veto powers in November 2007 when Council passed Ordinance 65-05.
The video below is from the Council meeting on July 14, 2008. Please turn your sound up - you may also use the volume control arrow on the video itself. Approximate length is 3 minutes.
Please click on the image below to view full-size document.
For those of you keeping score:
City Council: Two councilmember’s solidly in favor of “point-of-sale”, two ready to rescind, two more which kept their inclinations close to the vest and that leaves only Councilperson Diane Fistek, who announced her resignation from Council at the end of Mondays meeting.
Mayor Welo suggested rescinding 65-05 and letting the housing department take care of housing inspections on a citywide basis.
The long and arduous journey of "point-of-sale" will last at least two more weeks.
Note: There will be a Committee meeting at 7pm on this subject prior to the regularly scheduled City Council Meeting on Monday July 28, 2008.
1 comment:
It seems to me that once again our city government has taken the attitude that "We can do anything we want". I would remind those of you with short memories of the events which led to Georgine Welo's election. Various officials had the same idea, that the city of South Euclid was theirs to do with as they pleased. Witness the haphazard development throughout the city that we are still paying for. I must remind each and every member of City council that you serve at our pleasure, and what we voters have given can be taken away. One of the main issues which led to the demise of the Kocevar gang was the use of the Building department as a tool to hammer on the residents of this city,while commercial developers were given carte blanche. Ignore the lessons of the past at your own peril. I will be voting no on this issue, if I have the chance.
Post a Comment