By Randy Kugler
The annexation Ordinance approved by the Council at the June meeting to bring 17 acres into the City to allow for the construction of 70 homes included an Emergency clause. Emergency clauses are only allowed when a condition exists where the Council has to immediately address a threat to the peace, health or safety of the public.
I inquired of Councilor Hart what the public emergency was that required the City to deviate from the usual process of Ordinance adoption.
The explanation given was that the Emergency clause was the result of an “administrative drafting error during Ordinance preparation.” This makes little sense. Emergency clauses attached to Ordinances are done with deliberate intent, they just don’t somehow get randomly included during Ordinance preparation. Councilor Hart could not name who included the Emergency clause in the Ordinance.
Equally troubling is the fact Councilors would approve this Ordinance and claim to have been unaware of the existence of the Emergency clause. One has to conclude Councilors are voting in favor of Ordinances without understanding what they are approving.
Had this inquiry not been made, this Ordinance would have taken effect immediately. An Emergency clause attached to any Ordinance avoids the 30 day waiting period that affords citizens the opportunity to consider the impact of the Ordinance and take steps to place the matter for a vote of citizens through the Referendum process.
There is nothing preventing the Council on their own initiative from placing this annexation on the ballot for a vote in November. Now that the “emergency” and rush to build 70 more homes has been eliminated, there is also nothing preventing citizens from filing a referendum for a November vote should the Council move ahead and approve an amended Ordinance.
I suspect the Council believes that a majority of the electorate may not be as enthused to support this annexation as they appear to be and certainly have no interest in allowing any kind of a vote.
Council and resident’s priorities on this issue are likely very different.
City officials count the revenue from more construction and short term rentals that will result from this annexation. Residents will lament the loss of a long standing elk herd gathering area and a continuation of the slide into a year round coastal visitor destination filled with more rentals and expensive and largely empty second homes.
The Council in scheduling a vote on this annexation would be acknowledging that the desires of residents as opposed to the interests of developers are the Council’s first priority.
Ask them for the opportunity to have a vote. Listen carefully to the response as to why no vote is necessary and why this annexation at this time is in the best interests of residents.
