Eyewitness account of Coatesville city council meeting (Saha petition rejected, controversy ensues)

self | July 22, 2002 | Calvin Sun

[calvin sun]

My daughter Rayna and I arrived at city hall about about 8:15 pm. We saw trucks from both the local NBC and the local Fox stations. The ABC affiliate (WPVI Channel 6) had said they would send someone, but I didn't see them.

As we walked into the building, we saw Dick Saha with a group of other people, including one of his daughters, who were being interviewed by a local NBC reporter.

At this meeting, the Sahas planned to present petitions from Coatesville voters. The petitions asked that the concil rescind the ordinances that condemn the Saha home in order to build a regional "recreation center" / golf course. However, the Sahas were told that they would not be given a special place on the agenda, but would have to speak during the "citizen hearing" section of the meeting.

After the early part of the meeting (which was devoted to subjects such as neutering of dogs, changing the colors of the Coatesville flag, and other subjects) the citizen hearing part began. A woman and a gentleman each questioned the need for the recreation center, given that Coatesville doesn't even have a supermarket. The woman in particular said that few if any Coatesville residents ever would avail themselves of the golf course.

Dick Saha questioned the prospects of having a golf course, and whether or not his property would even be used for any part of the golf course. His point was that after three years the city has no idea what it is doing, and that it is being careless and cavalier with taxpayer money.

Dick's son in law Jeff Voelker spoke next, and quoted a recent Wall Street Journal article which cautioned developers about overbuilding golf courses. Apparently, this article was never read by the Coatesville city council.

Things became really interesting when Coatesville resident and Saha ally Pat Sellers presented the council with two petitions, each signed by over 900 Coatesville voters. The petitions requested the council to rescind respective condemnation ordinances.

Coatesville solicitor John Carnes advised Sellers that he (Carnes) believed the subject matter to be inappropriate. Carnes then quoted passages and represented to the audience that petitions related to eminent domain were inappropriate subjects. In fact, however, my own reading of the Coatesville home rule charter found NO such limitation.

The council then retired for ten minutes into executive session to discuss the matter further. When they returned, they took a formal vote of 5-1 (with Mrs. Mayo the lone objector) to reject the petitions.

I spoke soon afterwards, and told the council that the petitions, like Arnold Schwarzenegger, would "be back." I said that we would fight them in the court of public opinion, we would fight them in the press, on television, and on the Internet. And, come election day, we would be victorious. This last statement refers to the Coatesville charter which directs the city to hold a referendum election in the event the petition is not acted upon.

Dick's son Rick spoke after me, and talked about how the overwhelming sentiment of the Coatesville residents he visited, while gathering signatures, opposed the council actions. Rick said that even though he told signers that he had a copy of the condemnation ordinances, they (the signers) had no interest in reading it, because they knew they were opposed to the council. Council member Kevin Rolston kept interrupting Rick, saying repeatedly "so they didn't read the ordinance?" At that point Rick and Dick became visibly exasperated, telling the council that Rolston was out of order, and criticizing his legalistic attitude. Things got pretty heated, then the council adjourned the meeting.

My view is that council is grasping at any reason it can find to reject these petitions. I have yet to find any evidence that a petition is revoke a condemnation ordinance is illegal.

[calvin sun]

FYI

[Intolerant in NJ]

Channel 10 - NBC - had good coverage on this at 11PM, including interview with Mr. Saha and mention that 900 people signed the petition - good luck in fighting this monstrosity.....

[rwfromkansas]

how outrageous!

[brityank]

Council member Kevin Rolston kept interrupting Rick, saying repeatedly "so they didn't read the ordinance?"

You don't need to read all the smut to know it's trash. Thanks for the report and your support, Calvin. I stuck a blurb back on the other story from your post on the 18th. Cheers.

Ping for Property Rights / Landgrab.

[Alamo-Girl]

Thanks for the heads up! Jeepers...

[George Frm Br00klyn Park]

Guys, Taking land for their "preferred" businesses. The select robber barons of the state. Can the robbing hoods be far behind? Peace and love, George.

[HiTech RedNeck]

Rotsa Ruck fighting City Hall

[USMA '71]

This is just one more indication that people elected to public office AT ANY LEVEL invariably fall victim to the rush they get from "being in power". Most of these "officials" are shallow, non-producing piss-ants in everyday life - who become uncontrolled superheroes when elected to "serve" their fellow man. I am more convinced every day that holding political office at any level is a filthy business. If the Saha's lose their property to these ego-maniacs, America will be one step closer to death by a thousand cuts. Pathetic.

[HiTech RedNeck]

I wonder what's more for them to gain. Surely they know this golf course thing is going to be a money hole. Friends? Family? Grease?

[calvin sun]

Here is the relevant section of the Coatesville city charter:

§ 11.8-803. Initiative and Referendum.
The qualified voters of the City shall have the power, subject to the procedures and limitations set forth herein, to propose the initiation of ordinances or the repeal of ordinances previously enacted by the Council. The Council shall give consideration to any matters brought to its attention by the process of initiative, and if the Council should fail to act affirmatively in response to such petition, the action desired by the petitioners shall be submitted to referendum of the qualified voters of the City under procedures set forth below.

A—Limitations on Initiative and Referendum. The following limitations shall apply to the use of Initiative and Referendum:

1. Initiative and Referendum may not be used to:

a. Alter ordinances enacting or amending the annual operating and capital budgets of the City, however, such action may be taken with respect to any ordinance authorizing the establishment of specific programs or projects.

b. Alter the salaries of City officials and employees unless specifically authorized by law or by the Council.

c. Alter or rescind any ordinance providing for the levy and collection of taxes, special assessments, service charges, fees, rates, or other charges for City services.

Note that nothing in subparagraphs a,b, and c mentions that eminent domain is a subject "out of bounds" for petition purposes.

[dirtboy]

Note that nothing in subparagraphs a,b, and c mentions that eminent domain is a subject "out of bounds" for petition purposes.

SOP for municipal governments - undertake an illegal action so that it gets forced into the courts - and then drag it out in the courts so that the victim is exhausted financially and gives up. Seems to me that the only thing they'll listen to is a recall petition.

[Revelation 911]

any email addys available ?

[HiTech RedNeck]

Does Pennsylvania let them sue the city back for legal costs, for taking a frivolous legal position?

Also if this is as stupid a move as being reported here, is there a possibility of this resulting in enough of the city council getting voted out to kill the measure?

The only thing that stood out to me like it might be in favor of the city, is that it was "maintaining" the land in question for decades. How can this have been happening to private property, and who paid for it?

[RISU]

Little Hitlers, all in a row. Elect them to office and then see them go! They fuss and they fume...all over the place. In the end they will shine ...with egg on their face! Go "citizens"!!!

[Carry_Okie]

Good call. A recall would be far cheaper.

[bert]

What are Royalston's financial ties to the project?

[dirtboy]

Does Pennsylvania let them sue the city back for legal costs, for taking a frivolous legal position?

Also if this is as stupid a move as being reported here, is there a possibility of this resulting in enough of the city council getting voted out to kill the measure?

Don't know the answer to either question. Maybe another freeper can help here.

The only thing that stood out to me like it might be in favor of the city, is that it was "maintaining" the land in question for decades. How can this have been happening to private property, and who paid for it?

IMO that should not be relevant. Let's say I have a paper route and throw papers to the wrong house for a month. Does that oblige the homeowner to pay for the papers? No. Absent a contract connecting city maintenance to eventual city ownership, I cannot see how the city can make such a claim with a straight face...

[Ranxerox]

You should also famaliarize yourself with the rules for adjourning to an executive session. Many times there are conditions which need to be met before an executive session can be called. Don't let them use it as a device for keeping secrets.

[poet]

Is anyone really surprised at the arrogance of politicians?
The bad guys/girls keep getting re-elected and they continue to get re-elected in spite of things like this.

Has anyone noticed that the Administration is floating the idea that the Posse Commatitus section of the Constitution
should be "revised"? For those of you who don't know what that is, here it is:

"Amendment III

No soldier shall, in time of peace be quartered in any house, without the consent of the owner, nor in time of war, but in a manner to be prescribed by law."

While watching foxnews yesterday morning, the comment relative to this, a news crawl came at the bottom of the screen, but, no one mentioned it. It's a planting of "the seed" IMO. The next step is to have a poll so they can say 60% of Americans see nothing wrong with revising this article. We already know that 60% of Americans are willing to trade liberty for "security" as respects the Gestapo Law, oops, sorry, the p.a.t.r.i.o.t. act.

I urge you to pay attention to seemingly unrelated items as they form a pattern IMO. The new world order is alive and well and, just perhaps, these freedom restrictive laws just may become the legal arm of the totalitarians.

Men in suits with seemingly "good intentions" can restrict our liberties much easier that an army of uniformed soldiers because they can convince many people that they are passing these laws to protect us. The armed soldiers would make us aware, but, the the "suits" put us to sleep.

I know, I know, take off my tin foil hat. 8>).

FReegard to all.