![[Masthead]](http://www.lovelycitizen.com/images/nameplate.png)
RSS
Print
Email link
Respond to editor
Read comments (3)
Share link
Facebook
Twitter
del.icio.us
Digg
StumbleUpon
Technorati
Newsvine
Reddit
GoogleThe suit, brought by Pat Matsukis, Karen Lindblad, Rae Hahn, Lany Balance and Charley Wurmnest, asks for declaratory judgment and injunctive relief caused by Ordinance 2106, passed on July 1 of this year, which waived competitive bidding on coin-operated parking meters and included an emergency clause allowing their purchase.
The suit, which seeks approximately $40,000 for parking meters and the labor used in their installation, also claims that the defendants refused to certify and place the matter for a referendum vote, which should be scheduled for an emergency hearing with preference given by the court to be heard as soon as possible.
The suit states that the ordinance was approved by the council, and signed by the mayor and city clerk, without proper notice and publication as required by law.
A petition for referendum to refer the ordinance to voters was attached to the filing, calling for a special election no later that 60 days after signatures are certified by the clerk, More than 100 persons signed the petition, and exceed more than 15 percent of the votes cast in the last mayoral election.
The suit states that the parking meters were installed immediately or shortly after the passage of the ordinance, primarily around the Western District Courthouse. The suit calls for the court to find that the installation of the meters violates historic district commission guidelines as they constitute new construction without requisite HDC approval and a Level Three hearing.
It also violates state law, the complaint says. ACA 14-57-502 states that "Any municipal ordinance authorizing the installation of parking meters shall not be subject to an emergency clause" nor the limit the rights of the people under the referendum amendment to the state's constitution.
Note: The nature of the Internet makes it impractical for our staff to review every comment. If you feel that a comment is offensive, please
They are inarguably unsightly & incongruent with the whole groove, energy, and presentation of this town. I'm glad they're being challenged, and hope they are removed & replaced with a more appropriate option.
I think the meters look much better than those big honkin' yellow collection boxes. When there are cars in the lots you cannot even see them. They do not detract from the Artery.
Just the small group of hothouse flowers needing attention no matter what the cost.
I am sorry they are being challenged.
What a joke, in these tough economic times, filing a lawsuit which may cost our city additional money over something as frivolous as this. I guess SOME people just never got over that they were not allowed to be city council members, so, they will punish the citizens of the town with this nonsense. Jeez, it's not as if the council decided to put up an unsightly, giant cel phone tower or something like that!!! You reprobates need to get your collective heads out of your own, well, dark places. If E.S. needs the parking meters to generate revenues to help, at least in part, to support city services, then so be it. Instead of trying to financially hamstring your town with this lawsuit, why don't you geniuses come up with some REAL alternative means of generating revenues--then the parking meters could go away. Better still, why don't you dig in your own pockets and make up any shortfall in the city budget? I support this town by feeding the meters, patronizing the businesses and appreciating just how truly special a place E.S. is in this bland old world. I'm willing to suffer a few parking meters and try to keep perspective on things that are truly more important. What a pity that this is how some people get validation in their lives, when much more important things could be accomplished. Wise up!