I have been away for a while and was unable to comment on the church/conditional use permit vote in the city council. For starters, they voted correctly in my view, and the vote was nearly unanimous. Of most interest to me was the vote of Alderman Greg Helding who just a day earlier was the spokesman for the city's position - throw the church to the curb, we've got better ideas. But when it came time to vote, Helding voted against his own stated position and the position of the economic development committee.
So what happened? Were Helding et al persuaded by the speakers during the public comment period? Are we witnessing a shift in principles away from government edicts and towards greater economic freedom? Was the council feeling pressure from media sources outside the area?
My own theory is that there is no shift in principles. The council responded to pressure and pressure only, as they always do. Nothing has changed. If they can get away with it the next time, they will.
Of course Greg Helding and the other aldermen may use this forum to offer an alternative explanation for the about face.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
12 comments:
As a matter of fact, Helding was still taking the church removal position around 1 PM on TUESDAY - during his interview on Fox 6 News. By Tuesday evening, he had changed his mind. Even Helding isn't arrogant enough to think he can dance for a wide TV audience.
Denis, I asked this on DB's blog as well because I'm trying to understand - what was the legal footing the City Council was trying to use by requiring this type of permit (absent of precedent)?
Brad - Denis explained this a little in the other thread. Basically, the City has what they call a "conditional use permit" (put in place by Becker years ago when, ironically, he wanted to block another church to save the area for friends and family cash flow) - this permit is required on top of zoning ordinances already in place whenever a new entity wants to come into existence. In other words, if you want to put a store in an area of Racine that is zoned for retail, you STILL have to dance for the city council to get your "conditional use permit".
Don't have the right friends? Didn't contribute to the right people? Had a fight with the wrong person years ago? Just like the Soup Nazi - no conditional use permit for you!!!!!!!!
Thanks anon...
Are these ordinances conflicting? The one that defines the zoning, and the one that basically allows the city to defy development (even if matching the zoning)? Or is the wording of the ordinances JUST ambiguous enough?
I know we like to point out the general lack of fairness / equality / etc / everything else in terms of how things happen at the city level, but the Ordinance References are what we can look to directly to see how they play out.
I would challenge any of our alderman to question an ordinance that leaves to chance "how the city council feels that day"...
Brad - they WANT it left to "chance", with the ability to pick projects to allow and disallow, based on economic development issues (hidden agendas), future growth issues (they didn't pay off the right people), interpersonal issues (Gary Becker had a fight with that guy years ago and if we support his permit Gary might spil the bneans on those sleazy deals we put together in city haul), etc.
Anon -
I'm not arguing that fact one iota!
(I haven't used that word in a while. It seemed time.)
What I am wondering is if Racine citizens (read: voters) have made their displeasure well known to their representatives. (I have moved out of the city, so despite my ties, I have no true voice - and limited "ears" in the City).
I have asked every politician I have come in contact with whether they prefer to hear the voices of their constituents NOW, or wait until election day, when there's nothing they can do about it...
BradK, anon has quite accurately summarized the situation. I think what the city is doing is legal, though at the same time I suspect a case could be made that the council is acting arbitrarily, thus depriving citizens of equal protection under the law. I am not a big fan of zoning, but, until this ordinance at least, citizens would know in advance if their proposed church, store, gym, etc... was permissible under the zoning laws. Now, its only permissible if the council feels like granting you a conditional use permit, thus making zoning laws irrelevant. They should repeal the conditional use ordinance but they won't unless they are under great pressure to do so. Governments tend not to like to limit their own power. Anyway, there was a time when Alderman Helding would state his case on this cite. But I think he is a bit miffed at me because I challenged him on his priorities for the city. I know, citizens should not get involved in politics, they should leave that to the experts on the council.
Denis,
Love the last comment particularly.
Maybe if the elected officials "explained it more clearly to us" we'd all buy in...
B
Denis, not weighing in one way or another on this church issue, but just wanted to let you know Racine is not at all unique when it comes to conditional use permits or the ordinance being discussed.
Zoning laws can be very broad in scope, and sometimes those conditional use permits are useful. For instance, a CU could define hours of operation a business can be open in a residential area thus allowing the business to develop, yet appeasing neighbors who may be objecting to the business otherwise...and things along those lines.
But as you've touched on in your posts, they also are subject to the arbitrary recommendations of (usually) an unelected committee such as a Plan Commission or Economic Development Commission. That's where I have the REAL problem.
Hi, Denis,
I am going to try to insert a link here on your blog for you and your readers to read Article V of the Racine municipal code that describes the various “zones” (R1, R2, B1, B2, etc.) in the zoning ordinance.
Once you read them you will understand “conditional use” and why it seems so pervasive in our city’s regulatory process.
As long as a business, residence, building, etc, conforms to the zoning ordinance, there is no problem in starting up. No one will say a thing.
So why all the “conditional use” crap?
Read Article V and you will understand.
The alternative to all this BS, that would allow us to get on with the business of living and free Racine, lies to the south of us in the booming town of Houston.
[... ] is another relavant source on this subject[...]
http://loans-rate.info/
Post a Comment