Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout04-18-2017 Item 1, SchmidtCOUNCIL MEETING: I r / - ITEM NO.: 11 1 APR 17 20i% From: Richard Schmidt [ Sent: Monday, April 17, 2017 2:15 PM To: E-mail Council Website <emailcouncil@slocity.or > Subject: Agenda Item: Appeal Fees Dear Mayor and Council, Please see attached comment on this item. April 17, 2017, 16 days after April Fool's Day RE: Appeals fee Dear Mayor and Council Members, The only reason to raise appeal fees to the heights being proposed is to give an upraised bureaucratic middle finger to democracy and to the people you were elected to represent. The rudeness here is in staff's fee proposal, not in my characterization of it, which is 100% politically truthful. Any elected body should have the desire, patience, temperament, and willingness to hear any appeal of anything of substance a constituent wishes to bring to them. That's democracy. That's how America is supposed to work. Limiting appeals to those who can afford high fees is autocracy or kleptocracy — putting our city on a Trumpist course just as despicable and anti -democratic as what's happening in DC. Requiring exorbitant fees is nothing more than a naked effort by the bureaucrats to prevent such appeals from taking place. This is not about city hall economics, it's about fairness and decency. It's about the essential function of city government -- to look out for our health and welfare. I wonder how familiar you actually are with appeals processes at the city? Are you aware, for example, that staff can accuse a homeowner of violating ordinances they in fact are NOT violating, and that if reason does not prevail the homeowner's ONLY recourse is in court? The previous city council said they didn't want to be bothered with appeals on stuff like that, which stem from laws THEY passed, and that forcing their constituents to go to court was just fine with them. That's just plain wrong. It's also chicken since they passed the enabling laws and should be willing to face their fallout. Now staff wants to cut off appeals on big stuff by raising fees to the point most can't afford them. That's just plain wrong too.' You must not raise appeal fees. In fact, you should make all appeals free since an appeal differs fundamentally from other items in your "fee schedule." Unlike a permit fee, where one pays a fee for a service, an appeal is a fundamental American right enshrined in our national Constitution. It is wrong, therefore, to lump it into the same category as the city's "fees for service" for things like building permits, business permits, or others of that ilk. The right of appeal is enshrined in the First Amendment, part of our national Bill of Rights, which states (pardon the ellipses, but I want to cut to the quick): ' The bureaucratic "excuse" is appeals are costly in staff time. Well they don't need to be. Staff could just bug out instead of playing advocate, writing new reports, meeting in questionable serial meetings with all of you to propagandize you against appellants, and just let the appellant present a case to you, so you can decide. That would be expeditious and cheap, and not cost the city a dime more than the minimal cost of placing an item on an agenda. Staff's bias that they must be deeply involved isn't justifiable. They don't need to be. "Congress shall make no law ... abridging ... the right of the people ... to petition the Government for a redress of grievances." For those of you not up on First Amendment theory and history, "Congress" means you, a city council.2 And "no law" means no law, no inhibiting fee. Note that this right is categorical. The First Amendment does not say "the right of the people who can afford an appeal fee to petition the Government for a redress of grievances." It says this right of appeal is "the right of the people," period. Your appeal fees chill this fundamental American right. Raising an appeal fee chills it that much further. Legislative history and intent are instructive here. When appeal fees were instituted and then raised by the previous Council, it was with malice and forethought that this would "cut down" on the number of appeals. I suggest any Council that thinks that way should do its business in Russia, not in America, since this illustrates a fundamentally un-American understanding of the purpose of government. Representative government, after all, is supposed to have our backs, something the autocratic bureaucrats who bring you an appeal fee increase apparently don't understand. can see this playing out several ways. You can do the right thing, and make appeals free, and be heroes. Or you can force the People to do an initiative and put this on the ballot — at the next Council election — where the People themselves will enact free appeals and forever take away the power of the bureaucrats to infringe upon that fundamental American right. Thank you for doing the right thing and being heroes. Richard Schmidt 2 It's instructive that long prior to the First Amendment, the matter of denial of redress of grievances was cited as grounds for declaring independence from and making war on the mother country. In the Declaration of Independence, after a long recitation of offenses by the King, the authors noted: "In every stage of these Oppressions We have Petitioned for Redress in the most humble terms: Our repeated Petitions have been answered only by repeated injury." That was grounds for Revolution then, and could well become so again.