REAL--LY???

I'll admit it: my jaw dropped. Really. I was sitting at the June Planning Commission meeting near two other "ever-faithful" attendees when he said it.  The quorum that evening was made up of the three men on the Commission: Novacek, Cleminson, and Hansen. Before the group was a couple who had been trying since last fall, September, I believe, to get something done.  They had come across various stops and starts.  They were again before the Commission with their latest plan to be able to do what they wanted under the Ordinance.



During the discussion, one Commissioner made some comments I could hardly believe: "You're going to have to force this issue," he told the couple. "If you have split attorneys and a split Board in a sense...sometimes Fear runs the show." [Really? A Planning Commissioner who opines publicly that the Board must be afraid (at least sometimes) to do the right thing, to grant citizens what is theirs by law?  If I were on the Board, I would be deeply offended!] 
He went on, "You're going have to push it to make it happen.  I don't know how else to say that. My suggestion is force the issue, make it happen, have something to back up your stand before you get there (the upcoming Board meeting).  That's the Board's job- to make it happen for you, so don't feel bad about forcing the issue."

Gee, I always thought the Board's job was to enforce the Ordinances.  If one is entitled to receive something under the Ordinances and meets all the requirements, not only does the Board give it to him, they can't NOT give it to him!  FEAR has nothing whatever to do with it!  Enforcing the law does.  How does a Commissioner "help" a member of the public by stating such advice? Yes, an applicant should "have something to back up his stand," but to prove his point, not to instill fear in the elected officials.  Really.

It REALLY doesn't make much difference which Commissioner said it (Al Novacek), as the other two didn't contradict him in his assertion that "Fear sometimes runs the show." In fact, Hansen stated that Al's suggestion was " a good" one.  Cleminson had no comment that I remember, jotted down at the time, or can now discern from the disc recording..  Are we (the audience and the Township) to take this as the other two Commissioners agree that "Fear runs the show?"  That a majority of the current Planning Commission sees no problem with advising applicants thus? I wouldn't know what else to think.  As a former, respected Board Chair once said, "Silence is acquiescence."  I will tell you that this "outspoken" Commissioner has publicly made several statements before along the lines of his not liking ordinances, thinking Eureka would be better off without (any) ordinances, and that people should get to do "whatever they want" on their land.  Why would a Board appoint such a person as your Planning Commissioner? Planning Commissioners have an important duty working with and within the Ordinances.  Those laws have been passed properly, by public procedure, remember. Is this what we are getting for our tax dollars? Is this the best we can do?  Eureka Ordinances, Ordinance @, Chapter 3, pp 31-37  Note especially Section 6.


The one thing where I agreed with Commissioner Hansen was when he stated that Board liaison Behrendt's  suggestion of conferring with the BUILDING OFFICIAL as to what makes an addition part of the same building as a residence was a "good" suggestion. Without going into all the details, since a home occupation must be conducted within a residence under Eureka's laws, it would seem logical that the Building Inspector is best equipped to address this Code issue. Why a Planning Commission wouldn't understand this on their own, however, I can't figure out!  Really.


Giving what credit where credit is due, Hansen was willing to take the Board liaison's informed advice on this matter, even though, in my opinion, he seemed "unclear" as to why he should do so on an earlier matter at this same meeting.

I, for one, expect a lot more from public officials.  A certain level of professionalism for starters. Barfknecht and Jennings certainly provide that, I am happy to say.
As Hansen stated when he started the meeting: "The Commission is an information-gathering body.  We assist citizens in their application processes, answer any questions they might have, and prepare them for the Board meeting."  That all sounds great, but where does advising applicants that they "have to push...force" an issue because the "show" sometimes runs on "fear" come in? Is this "professional" advice?  Is this really what you expect to hear when you come before the Commission?  Eureka deserves more.


If you are a history buff (no one alive could be of that "certain age"), you might recognize this next picture as
the Virginia reel.

 

But maybe I should have made it the two-step. I do know my mind was reeling....