res_7499 - Laserfiche WebLink

Home

mentioned. We believe the cause of the present situation is the petitioning process itself. We had no knowledge of a petition in favor of the project until we received the hearing notice. While the hearing was well intended, any opposition expressed by the citizens in attendance had no effect on the Council's vote. Council members voted in favor of the improve- ment based upon the petition in favor of the project. Prior to the hearing, we were under the impression that just our project was to be heard and that the citizens in attendance would have the opportunity to vote on this issue as was done a few years ago at the hearing held at the Fairview School. After the hearing on March 14, 1983, we checked to see if there were any alternatives available to us in view of the opposition expressed at the hearing. At that time, I was led to believe that our petition process opposing the improvement was a legitimate means of attempting to reverse the City Council vote on our project. By circulating our petition, we discovered that the petition process is more abusive than we had antici- pated. Several homeowners in my neighborhood stated that they signed the petition in favor of the improvement because they thought it was a feasibility study. One individual stated to me that she was contacted three times after telling the petitioner that she was not in favor of the project. Mrs. King, the original petitioner, stated to me that she circulated the petition as a favor to an older gentleman who wasn't able to get around and that she too thought the petition was for a feasibility study. The original petition in favor of the improvement had 52.6% of the real property necessary for Council approval, which is no longer the case. Two of those homeowners, along with a number of others, have already signed a petition in opposition to the project and I would interject at this point that, in fact, the actual number of people who have changed their minds about the project in terms of their representation on the petition is now five homeowners. Unfortunately, the Council has no way of knowing how the signatures were obtained on the petition in favor of the project. Another area resident informed us at the meeting that his petitioner quoted him a p~ice that the project would cost no more than $600.00 per homeowner. He is now furious that he signed the petition. In conclusion, we contacted everyone involved in the project and gave them time to consider and check the facts before signing our petition. In addition, we did not pressure anyone into signing our petition. I find it reassuring that you took enough interest in this project to call me into your office and inquire as to the contents of our flyer and petition. My hope is that you take continued interest in the petition process by calling in others who have circulated petitions. Sincerely, Bill Lunzer. The homeowners had expressed a number of concerns. Among them is the fact that there will be no increase in the value of their property if the improvements go through. As -5-