Friday, September 28, 2012
While I really do not have a dog in the hunt on the “three-unrelated” rule, I do have a dog in the hunt on the inappropriate comments made by small-minded people in this town and reported and opined by The Daily Reflector on one councilman’s character.
It is clear that somebody has not done their homework on the issue of Councilman Max Joyner having one “excess” renter in his restored building on 14th Street, located in a commercial zone. My “fact check” included one click of the mouse which opened an official city web page prepared by the City Planning Department. Joyner’s property, zoned commercial, is not in one of the zoning districts which the city web page listed as subject to the “three-unrelated” renters rule. Makes sense; this is a residential issue, not a commercial area issue.
In addition, another click of the mouse denotes the city code that states that in addition to certain commercial uses in this zone, high density housing is “encouraged” to lessen the transition from residential to commercial. Makes sense and it is exactly what Joyner was doing.
Much to my surprise, the day after I put forward the aforementioned information to the city, the web page was significantly modified to agree with what the city attorney said to Joyner in a non-compliance letter, not what was described in the planning department website.
Clearly, we have a questionable city attorney opinion. Remember, under his legal watch, the airport fiasco on the manager’s salary occurred. To arbitrarily change a Web page, as was done by the city attorney, was wrong and unethical.
What we have is character assassination, aided by The Daily Reflector’s lack of adequate research. Pathetic.
Joyner is owed a public apology by the city and Reflector.
The Daily Reflector discovered a questionable reference to the city’s “three-unrelated” rule on the city Community Development Web page on Sept. 6, the day an article appeared concerning City Councilman Max Joyner’s property on East 14th Street being rented to four occupants in apparent violation of that rule.
Concerned that we had made an error in need of immediate correction, we asked city attorney Holec that morning to clarify the discrepancy between his statement to us that the rule applied to all residential properties and a sentence on the Web page that indicated the rule applied only to properties in certain zoning districts. Joyner’s property was not in one of those districts. A chart listing those districts also was included on the Web page just above the sentence in question.
After checking the Web page and meeting with city planning department personnel who posted the information there, Holec determined the sentence was inaccurate and the planning department was instructed to delete it. He advised the Reflector of this action later that morning. However, the chart listing zoning categories where the rule applied apparently was left on the page at that time.
The letter writer above, Terry Boardman, noticed this chart and advised the city of its presence there in an email on Sept. 18. Holec then moved to have the planning department further review and correct the Web page by eliminating the chart. In a response to Boardman on Sept. 19, Holec said the page contained inaccurate information and had been corrected. He then repeated the statement he had made to the newspaper that the “three-unrelated” rule applied to all residential dwelling units within the corporate limits and the extraterritorial jurisdiction regardless of zoning classification.
via The Daily Reflector.