![[Masthead]](http://www.lovelycitizen.com/images/nameplate.png)
RSS
Print
Email link
Respond to editor
Read comments (6)
The 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 asks that the defendents be ordered to reimburse the city $40,000 for the purchase and installation of the parking meters and also claims the defendants refused to certify and place the matter for a referendum vote.
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. The signatures total 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 around the Western District Courthouse and at a parking lot at 1 N. Main Street. The suit calls for the court to find the installation of the meters violated Historic District Commission (HDC) guidelines because they constitute new construction without requisite HDC approval and a Level Three hearing.
It also violated state law, the complaint says. Arkansas Code Annotated 14-57-502 states that "Any municipal ordinance authorizing the installation of parking meters shall not be subject to an emergency clause" nor 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
Small town get-back politics at its best. Shame on each and every one of you who filed this suit. Such a pity that you all need to validate your miserable existences in such a harmful way. With all that is wrong with the economy and the world on a larger scale, you small-minded pinheads can't think of ANYTHING more positive to do with your time? This is not some significant issue, it is a tempest in a teapot and there are obvious personal vendettas in play here. Why don't you all crawl back to your worm nest and slime around some more? Or maybe you can sue the city and the merchants for putting up Christmas lights before Thanksgiving, eh? Get a life....and hurry, yours are all being wasted.
I can't think of anything nice to say about Hahn and her group. What a bunch of losers.
As an expatriate Eurekan, 'all I know is what I read in the papers'. the LLC that is.
The issue of going over the public's head seems, in this case, pretty clear. Whether from sheer high-handedness, or someones hand in the cookie jar is not for me to say. But this suit doesn't strike me as frivolous at all.
And, by the way the two previous respondents do not show as much interest in the actual case as in being childishly insulting. "crawl back to your worm nest and slime around some more?" "What a bunch of losers." C'mon, people, be grown-ups!
If all you read is the LLC, then you are blithely ignoring much of what is going on behind the scenes here. There is a clear personal vendetta being conducted here against the mayor and current council and in the end, it is going to cost ALL the citizens of Eureka Springs money that does not need to be spent on this vendetta. Second, my "worm's nest" comment was a play on the name of one of the lawsuits' filers--or was that too subtle?
It seems democracy is on the wane in many communities! No longer are the wishes of the citizens acknowledged or respected. In these trying times when many sources of revenue have slowed, our elected, appointed or hired officials scramble to find sources for their budget shortfalls. In many cases their solutions are counter productive, and hurt all of us. When passing any agenda against the wishes of the community, then they should be held accountable. The leaders of Eureka Springs and Holiday Island it would seem, need to be schooled in the philosophy of Democracy and how it works. We must as citizens, do our part to ensure our way of life by voting, and vote those individuals out of office or prosecute them for violations of the office they were elected to.
We do not live in a democracy, Concerned, we live in a democratic republic. But leaving that aside, who says the wishes of the citizens were disrespected? Just because 100 people sign some petition, does not mean they represent ALL, or even necessarily a majority of E.S. voters. I daresay, in this town, you could get a 100 people to sign a petition outlawing dirt; there are enough 60's liberal, malcontent, throwbacks to insure that. I don't see how you can insist the parking meter thing was passed against "the wishes of the community" simply because five people, who definitely have a personal axe to grind with the current mayor, decide to sue the mayor and council. If you fail to take this into account, you are closing your eyes to recent town politics. Nevertheless, for the sake of argument, let us agree that the parking meter thing might have been handled better. So what to do? How about bringing it before the council, suggesting a better way to deal with things and resolve to correct the procedure for the future? Isn't that more civilized than this underhanded attempt to exact retribution from the mayor for an entirely unrelated issue? You are so enamored with the democratic process, so why not follow it? Suing, in this case, is nothing short of vindictive behavior, and those doing the suing know it as well as they know they are alive. I said this initially and I'll say it again--this is a tempest in a (demitasse) teacup. NEITHER YOU, NOR ANY OTHER E.S. CITIZEN LOST ANY SIGNIFICANT FREEDOM by the council's action. I see no trend by this mayor or council to subvert proper procedures on any ongoing or consistent basis. What would you like to see happen--for us to sue, jail or string up any city official who has ever made a mistake, knowingly or not? And that brings the question: if so, who would be left alive? Divisive, vindictive behavior has not worked in E.S. politics in the past and it has no place in this town's future.