Council Elect Burt Hewitt of District 4 and Alan Tart of District 6 will be sworn in this evening at City hall; Meeting time is 7pm. Also being sworn in is District 2 Council Person Julie Zahner Bailey; re-elected for a second term. To find out more about tonight's agenda; click here->Wednesday, January 09, 2008
Newly Elected Officials Being Sworn In Tonight.
Council Elect Burt Hewitt of District 4 and Alan Tart of District 6 will be sworn in this evening at City hall; Meeting time is 7pm. Also being sworn in is District 2 Council Person Julie Zahner Bailey; re-elected for a second term. To find out more about tonight's agenda; click here->
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
12 comments:
Milton got screwed but all three of them sworn in council people did us a tremendous favor this evening. We got to see their true colors. We have officially found the first milton screw-driver in the union of Milton. 6-1? Unbelievable! Hey, I know. Let's name a drink after it, get drunk, and drive down Freemanville after a high school football game or something. On the way to our farm or equestrian property. In all our RURALness. Or maybe after church down the street. Cheers!
In all fairness they did not have much of a choice considering the lawsuit they could face if they did not approve it. The attorney made sure EVERYONE heard that.
What is the difference between this rest and getting loaded at any of the other local rest and driving home? Some of these alcohol serving establishments are down the road in Crabapple.
What I find a joke is that a couple on the council acted like a beer and wine license is scaled down from liquor. They all contain alcohol and it is still DUI folks.
How can City Council pass a liquor license to a restaurant in this location with The River Church, The Providence Baptist Church, the Hayfield (bus stop),Holcomb Farms neighborhood and bus stop, and Summit Hill, and MHS all too close to this parcel. Are you kidding me?
I blame the community for this, for laying down, sleeping and being uniformed and uninvolved as usual in this City. We have 26,000 + residents and only about a handful of people stand up and say and do anything about the goings on in this City.
When you put an establishment that serves alchol so close to so many people's homes it tends to increase the chances of people taking the risk and driving home intoxicated since they only have to go "down the street" or just a 1/2 mile or so to get home. Thus increasing the risk of someone getting hurt or killed by an intoxicated driver. I know who I'd hold responsible if anything happend to my friends or loved ones as a result of this license being approved.
Does no one on Council have the guts to stand up for the community and do what is right on fear of being sued. How is the best for our Community. Looks like it's the best for the pockets of the owner of this restaurant, and not what is best for the residents that live here. Way to go City Council. You have shown your true colors once again, and the two new council members should not just go with the flow, learn about the situation and do what is best for the residents, not just the individual, that's why you were elected.
Some people were more effective in protecting this community before they were elected to Council. Shame, all that passion and drive to do what is right in Milton and for Milton wasted behind a pulpit and a microphone. Maybe some of you should consider going back to being a volunteer for our community, when you were more effective, more passionate, and had more guts.
LOCATION LOCATION LOCATION
I am confused. If the law says that you can't have a license if you are x amount of feet away from a church, school etc; and they were, the issue is not how people voted, but the law.
They had no choice but to approve. We can't just make up different laws because we don't like this or that location. The laws have to be consistent. If you don't like the way that it is being implemented, then get it changed. But don't complain because the council is simple enforcing the rules as they stand.
And lets not exaggerate every little thing. As someone here said, you could just go down the street and drink if you wanted. Drinking and driving is drinking and driving. No matter what the starting point is.
Does the council have or not have the right to discretion, under the application for the liquor license, and have every right to defer or deny this application?
For the City attorney to bascially threaten the Council they will be sued and they will lose, in that public manner, if they deny this license is wrong.
Why didn't Tom Wilson just approve it if the Council didn't have discretionary right on this issue? Why place it on the agenda in the first place? To say the council "had" to approve it sounds like they were at gunpoint. What kind of advice is approve it, or you'll be sued and lose??? Outrageous!
Maybe the Council should learn exactly what the law is from someone other then the City Attorney, who seems to be overstepping his boundaries in his manner of advising the council publically.
The River Church owns the corner opposing this restaurant and is within the designated distance to prevent this establishement from serving any alcohol. Funny how the owners got around this fact, why because the church isn't built yet.
Ask the Pastor, I do believe their intentions are to build their new church there. Wonder why he didn't speak against it, uninvolved and afraid of controversy like alot of the out of site, out of mind residents in Milton. That would make a good sermon. WWJD.
The concern here in my opinion is determining exactly what was the law, not just what our city attorney stated was the law, then moving forward from there. If the City Council indeed had no discretion then why did it go before them for approval?
Seems rather silly to me to waste all that time and energy since it was supposedly a done deal.
In this instance if the law finds and verifies that City Council indeed had zero discretionary right to deny or defer, and had to approve it,then in the future lets save a lot of time and energy and just leave it off the agenda altogether and Tom and the City Staff approve it without anyone having an opinion or say so in the matter.
If you want to spend your tax dollars on legal fees on a case that we're bound to lose, then go tell the council to deny this. Otherwise listen to the attorney.
I'm not the one who posted above, but you want the person to accept it on the advice of Mark Scott? You are making a joke, right? He is a politician before an attorney. How does he do in the private sector? In terms of billing?
Fire Scott and hire MoM's hubby as legal counsel, that way "MoM" will be making all the decisions!
Right, trust the attorney, since our best interests are at heart, and our city's.
He has his paycheck at heart and whatever loyalties he as to some individuals.
Verify the law before saying they sue the city and lose, afraid to challenge Mark Scott's information, why is that? Better to question then to not.
I guess everyone is trustworthy. He's an attorney and would never misguide our council or overstep his boundaries, or do anything wrong, attorney's never do that, trust goes with the title.
What is amazing is that people get upset when the zoning laws are not followed, but here the council is following the law, and people are still upset. I hate to tell you, but you can't have it both ways
Let's focus this energy on keeping the billboards out of Milton.
Is this group going to allow trash on stilts to pepper your city?
Post a Comment