Attention

The opinions expressed by columnists are their own and do not represent our advertisers

Friday, November 05, 2010

Fruitland Sign Ordinance Not Passed??

Joe-

If Andy Mitchell did say that the ordinance had not passed or even had the first reading yet, I'd say he is either suffering from dementia or lying.

Here is a clip from the
City Council Minutes from the Sept. 14, 2010 meeting:


"Public Hearing Ordinance No. 248 – Sign Ordinance ‐ 7:40 p.m.
At 7:40 p.m. President Olinde convened a Public Hearing to discuss Ordinance No. 248, which was given First
Reading at the August 10, 2010 Council Meeting, and which repeals Ordinance No. 164 and enacts in its stead an
ordinance providing for a new annual license fee scheme for advertising signs within the City, including signs which
are mobile, and/or temporarily providing for limitation of placement of said signs, and providing penalties for
violation of the ordinance as municipal infractions.

"After City Solicitor Mitchell presented Ordinance No. 248 for Second Reading, President Olinde opened the floor for
public comment; after discussion, President Olinde closed the Public Hearing and called for the motion.

"On a motion by Councilor Carey that was seconded by Councilor Tull and approved by a four to zero vote in favor
becoming effective September 14, 2010, Ordinance No. 248 was adopted with modifications to Section I,
Paragraph 3 and Section IV as articulated by Solicitor Mitchell. "

I don't know how much plainer that could be. Maybe , being a mere mortal, I just don't understand the intricate workings of the law and I need an attorney to explain things to me, but I CAN read.

What do you think?

Signed:
Dazed and Cornfused

11 comments:

Anonymous said...

Councilor Carey claimed to be 'on the fence' with this ordinance last night, yet it was he who made the motion to vote for passage and immediate implementation in the 9/14 meeting when it was passed.
Exactly what 'fence' is he on?
Maybe the John Kerry fence-- "I was for this before I was against it."

Anonymous said...

How much did Andy Mitchell earn for his efforts to draft this rotten ordinance, do you think he should waive his fee for his legal "advice" on this one ?? Councilman Carey, are you serious?

Anonymous said...

Just like his brother - Clueless. This is Seth's posting on his facebook about losing the election. Not smart enough to keep his mouth shut even after getting a beating!

Seth Mitchell for State's Attorney "Sorry I let you all down but I did defeat the incumbent and refuse to grant interviews with bloggers. Finally I never truly became a politician like my opponent. I never lied, or intentionally remanded ignorant to the facts to enable myself to continue with false information to the public."

Anonymous said...

Also if it wasn't passed - how do people already have bills for it? I was told by 1 business owner he received a bill for over $1000 for signs

Anonymous said...

The same fence that the Salisbury City Council is on, NO DIRECTION!

Anonymous said...

I don't think it was said that the ordinance had not passed, what I believe was said was that they could not repeal it last night. It had to have a 1st and 2nd reading and be voted on.

Anonymous said...

The new ordinance had a first reading and a public hearing at which time it was approved. Not sure I understand what the question is. It went through the procedures, the council (previous) voted on it and passed it on Sept. 14. At the meeting last night, the new council passed a resolution to place a stop on any fees associated with the ordinance until they can fix what was obviously a bad ordinance by the prior council. Everything seems in order to me.

Anonymous said...

The problem here is that it was a lousy ordinance in the first place. Did the previous council, including Carey, not have time to read it before voting for or against it? This is all ludicrous!

Anonymous said...

Ray Carey will talk in circles to put the blame on anyone except himself. He knew none of the former members were present so it was east to sat "I'm on the fence". For once Ray, admit you were wrong. As for Gloria, she attends maybe half of the meetings she's supposed to be present for. She held the Treasurer's position but never did a thing to show for it. She doesn't even pay Fruitland taxes! Everything belongs to HER church. Did she get lucky on that or did she start up a church to pay her way. Gloria, are you planning to move south once your off the council? Is that why you have the property down there and can be found there? Must be nice to get a check from us hard working residents who pay our taxes, yet you pay none. I don't think it's right. In the future those who run should also pay taxes in Fruitland!

Anonymous said...

Agree the ordinance is not right in the fee area, but where was everyone at the meeting to get it passed. Stay active on the topics of the city and you will not have to worry about not knowing. It has been public since August.

lmclain said...

Public officials are elected to represent the public. Not to spend every dime they can squeeze from the people and then look around and try to squeeze some more. I hate it when people say "why didn't you show up at the meetings/hearings?"....BECAUSE we have full time jobs and families and are not rich, with lots of leisure time to attend every "hearing"....I'm sorry, son. Can't go to your game because I have to keep both eyes on the lying thieving snakes who are supposed to be SERVING me --- if I turn my attention away FOR A SECOND, they will slice and dice me to death. And PLEASE, boss, can I get off a few hours early today (and next Tuesday, and the following Monday) so I can make sure our PUBLIC MASTERS don't sneak another fee or tax into the system? QUIT SPENDING!! That will eliminate the need for NEW revenue. And I will have a family life again.