I find the give and take and arguing out of issues exhilarating. It's a good exercise in government for elected representatives and citizens.
My game plan for this meeting was to sit near the back and pretty much just observe. I figured the curfew ordinance would pass and whatever the committee had negotiated on the sidewalk ordinance would move forward. I based these plans on having expressed my opinion in a letter to Borough Council which I had hand carried to the Borough office on July 7th. Here's the letter:
July 7, 2009
Council of Ligonier Borough
Town Hall
Ligonier, PA 15658 RE: Curfew and Sidewalk Cafe Ordinances
Dear Honorable Sirs and Madam:
In this week during which we have celebrated our Independence Day, I have pondered the attack on freedom and liberty. It's happening at every level of government - federal, state and local.
Our rights are not bestowed upon us by government. Our rights are bestowed upon us by the Divine.
We, the People, have created in this great nation - a limited government, BY the People, so that these precious rights may be protected.
We humans, with all our frailties, sometimes in an effort to do good, make mistakes. That is why we have checks and balances. We must remind each other of the precious value of liberty and help each other remember that the taking away of property or liberty from one to serve the needs or wants of another is not the first choice of a free society. It should be the last choice of a free people and guarded against with vigilance.
That said, I OBJECT STRONGLY TO the curfew ordinance and the sidewalk cafe ordinance. There are plenty, PLENTY of laws already on the books to police any kind of trouble or crime that might arise in public places without limiting the freedom and liberty of the People.
On the issue of the sidewalk cafe ordinance, we already have the right to have sidewalk cafes. There is no prohibition against it. You must only make sure you do not violate the existing sidewalk laws which have a minimum width for passage. We have experienced over the last twelve months a smoke screen of words in which local officials who don't like the idea of sidewalk cafes have created the impression that sidewalk cafes are against the law. They are not. Just as these same local officials have created the impression that they have the right to tell us how high the flowers can grow and whether or not we can have a bench outside our home or business so people can take a load off and smell the roses.
I know that many who read this are as far from scofflaws as you can get and a few have even been unlawfully cited as violators and threatened with fines. We've fought against the smoke screen of words and found behind it - the truth. There are limitations on the powers of government. Thank heavens! Now let's be a responsible citizenry and teach our children and each other the true meaning of freedom and liberty and stand up and resist laws that punish and restrict a free people who have committed no crime.
Sincerely,
Diane Cipa
Having attended a few Borough Council meetings over the years - many years ago and a few here more recently, I noted that correspondence is read as part of the meeting. I mistakenly thought that sending a letter to Council would mean that the letter would be included and read in the meeting. I was wrong. When I saw the agenda, saw that my letter was not included, I inquired and was told that all members of the Council had received the letter but that Council decided not to include it in the correspondence that would be reviewed in the public meeting.
Well, that changed my plans. I requested a copy of my letter as I had not brought any notes with me, planning as I was to just observe. So I moved my seat up front and waited for a chance to read the letter. I did eventually get to read it.
Here's a few of the more interesting things that happened:
- Council voted to advertise the sidewalk cafe ordinance. I expect that you'll see the advertisement in the Echo next week. If the Echo chooses NOT to publish the full text for the public, I will type it out here.
- During public discussion concerning the sidewalk ordinance, Joe and Diane asked some questions concerning their operation at Abigail's. On page 5, in section 8, B it says "A sidewalk cafe may operate only during the same hours that the kitchen is open for service." Since Abigail's closes their kitchen early but still continues to serve coffee, would they change the word kitchen to business. That was agreed. Section D says "No food or beverages may be served to a patron at a sidewalk cafe unless that patron is seated at a table." Since some people sit on the bench and also some people stand outside with their dog on a leash and have coffee handed to them out the door, how would that be handled? Council did not want to make any changes to that wording. There was also discussion about the width of the sidewalk between the pillars in the arcade and the tables outside Abigail's. There is not 60 inches, which is the minimum required under the ordinance. Council suggested that they either get smaller tables or move the tables to be certain that they are not opposite the pillars so there is sufficient space.
- I asked a question. In the application procedure, on page 2, section 4, A it says "If the applicant is other than the owner of the building abutting the location of the proposed sidewalk cafe, the applicant must provide written authorization from the property owner stating that the property owner has no objection to the sidewalk cafe." Owner is defined on page 1, section 2 "OWNER includes any owner of fee simple title, part owner, joint owner, tenant in common, tenant in partnership, joint tenant or tenant by the entirety of the whole of the land contiguous to the street right of way on which a sidewalk cafe is to be operated under the authority of this Ordinance." I wanted to know why a sidewalk cafe permit required evidence of approval by the property owner when such evidence isn't required for any other permit issued to businesses in the Borough. I was told that it was a liability issue to which I replied that liability is being covered by the insurance requirements in the ordinance. I further asked why the definition of owner was so broad. I asked what if there were 30 partners who owned a commercial building - all 30 would have to give approval. Council then said there would be a representative and I said then put that in the ordinance that an authorized agent or manager could speak for the owner. I don't think Council understood what I was saying. The funny thing about writing a law or a rule is that it better say exactly what it should say or years later no one will remember what they wanted it to say and someone will interpret it literally and then you're in trouble. I have learned that you had better lobby for specific words that make sense to you and not to depend upon promises of interpretation that are different that the actual words in the law. At any rate, that part of the discussion blurred into Council saying I was raising a lot of "what ifs" - what if this, what if that, etc. and I said that's the basis of their entire ordinance. It was based on a lot of what ifs. Anyway, I guess their what ifs are more important than my what ifs. ;) So, anyway, folks, they voted and it's moving to passage after the advertising period.
- The curfew ordinance passed and is now law. There were two votes against it, Sam Banales and Dale Show. During the discussion of the curfew, it was clear that those in favor wanted to give our police department the tools they had requested. I want to make it absolutely clear that my objection to the curfew ordinance in no way infers that I have anything but the upmost respect for our police. I have had to contact our police department several times over the years and find their response swift, polite and professional and always helpful. I feel very safe in Ligonier. I simply do not believe we should have a curfew. I see it as an infringement on liberty and a punishment of good kids who are responsible.
- On the West Church Street lot request, it's clear they were not seeking to subdivide and create lots but rather amended their plan to show "unit" lines and so by changing the word "lot" to "unit" Council had no objections.
- In general discussion over the sidewalk ordinance, a comment was made about the Ligonier Living blog by a member of Council. I took the comment to mean that I was accused of calling Council names. I was astounded and caught off guard and though apparently he meant to say that someone - not me - had called Council a bad name, I sure didn't hear that part because I was still astounded. That made the meeting a bit dramatic for me, certainly more than I anticipated because I felt stunned that anything I wrote could have been taken in that light. I am highly opinionated but I try very hard not to cross certain lines and frankly I don't feel that way about Council. I believe they are motivated for good reason and am I motivated for good reason. We are simply just opposed on these issues and a fair discussion is what I look for. As for what someone else may have said here, well it's an open forum and I don't censor unless I see obscenity or really hateful words that have no purpose. It may be that my sense of tolerance for discord is higher than some but I am an advocate for liberty and freedom of speech which can sometimes be dangerous and so I do take responsiblity for what is on the blog even if I did not say it.
Good night, Ligonier!!!
livecam
0 comments:
Post a Comment