Councilwoman Shanie Shields started the debate by citing her campaign slogan, “Build Partnerships for Positive Change”. She then cited multiple examples of the city accepting grants.
Councilwoman Laura Mitchell attempted to trace the chronology of the project. She argues that since the city acquired the property, not going forward with the project is tantamount to backing out of a contract. However, as she admitted, the council had never passed legislation approving the deal.
Mitchell cited a contract signed by former council president Louise Smith and notes that Smith was not bound to get council approval because of the dollar amount. This was true. What Mitchell neglected to note was that Smith signed the contract attesting that it WAS “Approved by Council”.
Mitchell also claimed that council approved the project of other occasions. This is not entirely accurate. While Mitchell stated that the “council voted” to approve the project, in reality the council never did take such votes. Discussion in work sessions do not constitute “votes”. If they did, councilwoman Shields would be listed as an “aye” vote for the budget as she stated on multiple occasions, in work session, that she supported the budget and would support any override vote.
Councilwoman Debbie Campbell noted that former council president Smith did not have the authority to sign a contract as “Approved by Council”.
After debate, the council voted 3 – 2 to not move forward with the project. Voting to move forward were councilwomen Laura Mitchell and Shanie Shields. Voting against moving forward were councilmembers Debbie Campbell, Terry Cohen, and Spies.
After meeting, councilman Time Spies explained his vote:
The project doesn’t adequately address security for the residents or for the surrounding neighborhood. Talking to neighborhood residents I am not hearing support for this project. The residents want single family homes because that is what the Church Street neighborhood is designed to be. …… For all that Mrs. Shields talks about affordable housing, she has been very supportive of the city’s landlords. I think that Mrs. Shields should be talking to the city’s landlords about working in partnership with the city to provide affordable housing.
No comment has been received from the Mayor’s office at the time of this post.
8 comments:
Seriously, Tim Spies explain his vote? Its so obvious he will vote with Cohen and Campbell regardless
of what he feels.
Spies says Shields should be "working with the landlords" She might be able to if Debbie, Terry & JImmy didn't spend most of the time attacking property owners.
You can't have it both ways, Timmy.
Mmmm , the shoes on the other foot now , how does it feel Shanie?
Loosen up ireton , we know your panties are in a wadd.
This would have been the most modern and expensive crack house in America.
Spot on 2:19 - I was just sitting here thinking the same exact thing. Shanie really doesn't like putting the shoe on the other foot - doesn't fit so well does it? Look how long we have been putting with with Shanie's idiotic comments and votes just to please Comegys and Smith and the slum lords. It's about time we had sensible people do what is right for the city's citizens.
I'm still in shock that Ireton and Shields sicced the "minority community" on those council members who voted against this on economic and liability grounds. That's sick.
Only govt fools would have even considered "the Bricks" to be a viable investment for "low-income" housing. Easy to dream dreams when you can spend other people money.
Code Enforcement worried the owners to death till they just gave their property to th city. Suddenly it became of value. They should give it back and allow them to fix it without hammering away at them. Do something decent.
Post a Comment