I started looking through tomorrow’s meeting agendas for the SF City Council and found a mixed bag of interesting items.
Considering Mike got his Arena site picked for the Events Center. I guess now he can move forward on the rail relocation 🙂
During this meeting they will be discussing council approval and notification before the mayor signs contracts. It’s a complicated read, if you have the time to indulge.
This of course is something the mayor has been fighting, but I think is a good thing, and well overdue. This should have been done during the Munson administration so we wouldn’t of had a 100% cost overrun on Phillips to the Falls. They will also be discussing freezing water rates for the old and the poor, but screw the rest of us I guess.
Pawn Shop ordinance (Item #25) This will be an interesting discussion, because as I understand it, it was deferred to allow the 2nd hand goods people to have a say in how it was written. Not sure if they were allowed to or not. This I am sure will come out tomorrow. The original version that was presented was considered unconstitutional to many of the pawn brokers and their attorney.
Due Process and hearing examiners (Item #30 – 1st reading) These changes came about after the city has faced many lawsuits, including Daily vs. City of SF and the red light camera suit. What are the changes? Well what I can see with my NON-Attorney eyes are as follows;
• If you believe you have not violated city ordinance, you can appeal the decision (ironically there is a $50 processing fee, that will be refunded, of course, if you are found not guilty)
• Once you file an appeal the city will stop fining you, nagging you, bugging you and harassing you until a final decision is made.
• The city bears burden of proof
• subpoenas will be allowed
• The hearings will be recorded
I’m not sure what to think, but I still have a problem with a hearing examiner, hired by the city deciding whether or not you have violated city code.
Districting Committee (Item #35) I found the new members interesting
Correct me if I am wrong, but I think in the past there has been two Republicans, two Democrats and one Independent. I don’t see that this time, and I am wondering what the RULES are on that topic. Secondly, I found the appointment of Glenski, Knobe and Traub also interesting. Glenski complained about the districting last time around, so that is no surprise she is on board this time. Traub is new to this city government thingy, and is getting involved, which is a good thing. He of course was the voice of Build it Downtown. Knobe has batted around the idea of running for Vernon’s seat next spring (at large city council). Wouldn’t this be a conflict of interest if he intends to run?
A former city politician told me tonight that the 3/2 mix was Kosher as long as one of the Republicans was chairman.
Isn’t it a law in SD that republicans are always the chairmen, governor, keeper of the money, head stud duck of everything? Pretty sure it is a law.
Don’t give them any ideas.