Hot News!
• Tea Party leader gets grilled by NAACP membership
On today's date in The Beacon archives, we published:
•Smitherman still saying the issue is about a “streetcar” (2009)•More on Amy Goodman’s Arrest and the Struggle for a Free Media (2008)
•Journalist Amy Goodman Unlawfully Arrested At RNC (2008)
•Seizing Illegal Guns—Thinking About 2% (2007)
•Information or Advertisements? (2007)
•Nick Lachey: “I have never supported George W. Bush.” (2007)
Contact Us
v mail: (513) 685-0678
e mail: click here
Thursday, June 21, 2007
3CDC and City Council’s idea of an “Emergency”
Posted by The Dean of Cincinnati
Recently, I sent this letter to the Department of Building and Inspections about 3CDC’s LED screen at Fountain Square. It appears that screen, which is really an outdoor advertising sign, violates portions of the Cincinnati Municipal Code. Turns out there is not a violation—and in the legalities of the LED screen even more shocking questions are uncovered.
Here is a copy of the notwithstanding ordinance granted to 3CDC, voted on unanimously by the current City Council:
I am most concerned about Section 4 of this ordinance, which reads:
Ever since Jeff Berding instituted his hurry-up offense, so-called “emergency ordinances” have been used to rush things through council before anyone has a chance to see what’s going on. And this notwithstanding ordinance has all the accoutrements of just such a secretive rush-job.
Section 4 of this ordinance uses circular logic. It claims that the emergency exists because the LED screen must be installed safely and properly. However, this ordinance is not about the safety of the screen; it is about allowing it to be installed though the CMC disallowed that type of outdoor advertising sign in that location. A big TV screen near Fountain Square has no bearing whatsoever on “public peace, health, safety, and general welfare.”
It seems to me this is a clear example of our politicians abusing the system to push favors for their corporate friends.
• Share This Article! | Listen to this article |
|  |
Register
Anonymous comments are allowed, but you can create an account above to stamp your name and to avoid typing the anti-spam code.
If you are not familiar with our rules for leaving comments, click here! The Cincinnati Beacon is not responsible for the contents of any comments. Comments do not represent the views of the moderators of The Cincinnati Beacon.
This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-NoDerivs 2.5 License.
21 Jun 2007 at 07:05 pm | #
Ummm… The vast majority of ordinances passed by City Council are emergency ordinances and use that same language “...the preservation of the public peace, health, safety and general welfare.” In fact, it is practically the norm to have an emergency ordinance.
Well that is one more “shocking question” debunked.
21 Jun 2007 at 07:26 pm | #
Jeff Berding changed the rules to keep things like this away from the public. Emergency ordinances shouldn’t be used to keep things from the public. They should only be used for real “emergencies”.
This affects our public space and a bunch of politicians that are beholden to the special inetersts of 3CDC shouldn’t make these decisions without public hearings. It’s our square and if it weren’t for 3CDC’s money they wouldn’t have been elected in the first place.
Shame on them!
21 Jun 2007 at 10:19 pm | #
The truth is maybe it should be questioned everytime they use the words “nonwithstanding” Just because they are city council doesnt mean they dont have to follow their own municipal code! Alot of them may be Emergencty ordinances but not all of them are “nonwithstanding”
21 Jun 2007 at 11:16 pm | #
Jodo- I agree with you on notwithstanding ordinances. They are used more frequently than they should be. But to be clear they are used all kinds of things not just things benefitting big companies or 3CDC.
One point of clarification:
An emergency ordinance is really just a procedural legal thing. It means that an ordinance will take effect immediately after passage rather than waiting 30 days to be on the books. An ordinance that is not an emergency does not get any more or any less scrutiny than an emergency ordinance since they both are required to go through the committee process (unless City Council suspends the rules which is actually more rare under this Mayor and City Council) In fact with an emergency ordinance there is one more role call vote of City Council involved so I would imagine it is more of a hassle for them.
Let me explain it this way. Can you imagine if a company made a business decision and then had to wait 30 days before they could implement the decision? That would not make practical sense. With the “emergency” clause all it means is that the ordinance takes effect without delay.
21 Jun 2007 at 11:35 pm | #
This didnt have to be an Emergency they could have waited for it to go into law… In fact 3cdc should have had to go down to the permit center and file a permit application and then they should have had to go through all of the appeal hearings or in this instance they should have been required to ask for a variance! Why should they be granted a nonwithstanding ordinance, when the average citizen with no political connections is forced to waste tons of money and time doing things the right way…(City Hall will even make you exhaust a your claim all the way to the supreme court even if they know they are on the wrong side of the law) If 3cdc had to go through the process to get this permit everyone that wanted to speak their minds would have had the chance to do so much like the hearings that took place for the CityLink proposal… Like I said in my other post… Its great to have such corrupt friends when they are on your side… But if you are a group like CityLink (Requesting for zoning approval for welfare services in the least restrictive zoning in the zoning code and you are up against the political powerhouses) You get the shaft right up where the sun doesnt shine!
22 Jun 2007 at 08:00 am | #
Dean, it’s well known that you make a big showing out of not being a journalist, but come on, man. At least do your homework. As stated above, if you have a passing familiarity with the language used at City Hall, you’d know that an “emergency ordinance” is far from what it sounds like.
Love the blog, but don’t waste my time.
22 Jun 2007 at 08:24 am | #
Anon #6, if you knew how to read, you would have seen the following—both in the ordinance and in my piece above:
22 Jun 2007 at 11:48 am | #
I guess in terms of classification, the LED board might be an “outdoor advertising sign”. There are non-profit PSAs and sponsor messages from the organizations that sponsor Fountain Square events that air on the board. The only commercials I’ve seen are during Reds games, etc. when they show those on Television. The content guidelines are on the Fountain Square Website.
I’m curious as to what you would like to see done differently, Dean. The Municipal code changed? Different procedure at City hall? This is the Beacon, so maybe ‘insert nth comment about run 3CDC out of town here’ is an option also.
If the goal here were exposure, That’d make sense, save for the fact that the primary story of this article seems to have been invalidated by people more familliar that yourself with the goings-on at City Hall. Though, the claim of circular logic in Section 4, as seen above, does seem to be valid. I just wonder what you propose should be done about it.
22 Jun 2007 at 12:06 pm | #
You’re being silly. The rules only apply to citizens, not to those that bankroll elections. If you think it is any different you are deluded. Only with citizens making noise will this ever change. The reason CityLink was stopped(temporarily) is because of public opposition. The Berding/Bengal hurry up offense is to eliminate the need for public discussion. The true emergency is to get these fascist assholes so deeply rooted in our lives that it will just be accepted as the way it is. Keep the heat and light on this and ask council members why they have corporatized our public square.
22 Jun 2007 at 04:51 pm | #
The emergency ordinance clause is the same for any ordinance regardless if it is for corporations or for citizens.
I will have to side anon 9:16. This is procedural.
Please point out the number of emergency versus non-emergency ordinances in 2007.
Reply to Dean’s #7 - It is the standard language used.
24 Jun 2007 at 04:37 pm | #
^Point out the number of headlines by Dean that upon further investigation turm up empty.
25 Jun 2007 at 11:45 am | #
A nonwithstanding ordinance is not standard procedure…
25 Jun 2007 at 12:07 pm | #
Standard Language my ass… check out ordinance 247-2007!!!!
Even asking for something very similar! Stay on this Dean!
25 Jun 2007 at 12:08 pm | #
Excuse me iit is 248-2007 I want everyone to look at!
25 Jun 2007 at 10:28 pm | #
Lowbrow,
Doing a quick keyword search, it looks like there were 322 ordinances in 2007 of which 182 are “emergency” using that same language.
Jodo,
There were 18 notwithstanding ordinances in 2007.
26 Jun 2007 at 12:03 am | #
The city who calls wolf
26 Jun 2007 at 12:50 am | #
Dean you are being too quiet about this lately… Talk to us!
26 Jun 2007 at 03:27 pm | #
Jodo#5: CityLink is in court because Onecity Foundation( CityLink Parent Company) and the leadership of Crossroads Church are a pack of liars, and underhanded scoundrels. The only hearing that was held was by the Zoning Board of Appeals. They lied to the Zoning Dept about CL being a commercial enterprise in order to get into a Manufacturing Zone. They told a completely different story about what a wonderful asset their Community Service Facility was going to be to the community. CL was stopped because public opposition exposed their attempted violation of the law to closer scrutiny by the Zoning Board of Appeals and City. Tim Burk(CityLink Political Powerhouse) and Dale For Sale Mallory(CityLink Political Flunky) were supposed to squash the public opposition before it ever got started. The other thing is the City Council recognizes CL for not only what it is but, also the negative effect it will have on the entire City. So basically what it boils down to is that CL tried to steamroller their facility through the same way you say 3CDC does.
26 Jun 2007 at 10:39 pm | #
My point of all of that was… Why shouldnt 3cdc have to go in front of the zoning board of appeals as well? I by no means endorse crossroads or have an oppinion on their project except for the fact that it was the least restrictive zoning there is in the zoning code and if they werent able to do it there where could they? Crossroads had to file for a permit and 3cdc should have to as well. A nonwithstanding ordinance is only a way to push the paper forward so the public cant get involved in the process (on public property)
27 Jun 2007 at 09:09 am | #
Jodo#19: Crossroads got a “Certificate of Compliance” from the Zoning Department by lying to them about the true purpose of their project. An appeal was filed by residents of the community, and it was shown that their proposed facility in fact did not fit the zoning. Just because it is the least restrictive zoning, for commercial activity, does not mean that any project of any type should be allowed in. If the perpetrators of citylink truly believed they had a worthwhile project that wasn’t going to be an overall detriment to the city, they could have gone to the City and asked for a “Nonwithstanding Ordinance”; but they knew they had a bad plan, they tried to sneak by, and got caught.
27 Jun 2007 at 05:05 pm | #
No matter how you view crossroads and their agenda (which I am not a fan of them myself) They still went the proper route by applying for a building permit.A nonwithstanding ordinance is nothing but a skip the line pass, which most people or corportations would be told they are going to have to file for a permit(nless ou are someone like the 3cdc. The city did not go by the law rejecting citylinks permit, thats why it was reversed in court. The city is also abusing their powers by giving 3cdc the power to do what they want to do.. (I am actually a fan of the jumbotron and would like to see more changes like this one to add excitement downtown, I just believe in it being done the proper way) Jeff Ruby and Bootsy are asking for something that is out of the zoning code for their new place also and Im sure they will bend over for them also (I am also a fan of Jeff Ruby, yet I think he should have to follow the rules everyone else has to follow. (If they cant ammend the rules for everyone, they shouldnt bend them for anyone is the way I see it!
28 Jun 2007 at 10:35 am | #
Jodo#21:“They still went the proper route by applying for a building permit.”
The did not go the proper route. They misrepresented the project to the Zoning Dept in order to get approval. They did not get a building permit, they got a certificate of compliance.
Jodo#21:“A nonwithstanding ordinance is nothing but a skip the line pass”
The purpose of a nonwithstanding ordinance, is to allow something that conforms with the spirit of the law, but is not within the letter of the law. CityLink could have gone down that road, but knew their project did neither.
Jodo#21:The city did not go by the law rejecting citylinks permit, thats why it was reversed in court.
It is still in court. As for Winklers ruling, I wouldn’t bet the farm based on it, he hadn’t even read the briefs before the oral arguments.
I hope Jeff and Bootsy get what they need; I’m sure the steak will be funkalishious.
08 Jul 2007 at 09:37 pm | #
I know I’m late to this thread - but installing a tv screen is an emergency? Berding will do anything for his masters.
11 Jul 2007 at 01:01 am | #
CincyJeff,
Not only are you late to the thread, you OBVIOUSLY didn’t read the comments to it which should clear up the whole “emergency” language. I am not even going to bother repeating it. Just read the comments above and then take a second, process what you reading, and then stop acting so incredulous.
By the way, Bortz introduced the ordinance not Berding. Why all the Berding bashing?