Neighbors for Justice Support New Jail:
But not in our back yard, say residents
In what at first appears to be a contradiction of the lawsuit it filed against the City of Bartlesville
and the Bartlesville City Council, Neighbors for Justice (NfJ) issued a statement proclaiming its
support for a new jail in Washington County.
“We absolutely believe that a new jail must be built. However, we also believe there should be
some conditions regarding where it is built,” said Luwana Brewster, one of the spokespersons for the new citizen group in Bartlesville, Oklahoma. The new jail should not be across the street from our homes and play areas." Currently, the proposed jail site is surrounded by residential neighborhoods on the north, west, and south sides.
A civil suit was filed against the City of Bartlesville and the Bartlesville City Council on September 23 seeking a permanent injunction against use of the jail site.
The NfJ suit was filed with Washington County District Court on Tuesday, September 23, 2008
by Tulsa law firm, Gibbs, Armstrong, Borochoff, Mullican and Hart. This firm also successfully
represented the South Tulsa Citizens Coalition (STCC) in a three-year battle to stop the
construction of a privately owned toll bridge. In January 2008, the Oklahoma Supreme Court
ruled unanimously in favor of STCC.
NfJ has also created a legal fund to help pay legal fees that will be incurred during the legal
battle, which may be long and arduous.
The following is quoted from the September 24 Examiner Enterprise:
“If the injunction is not granted, plaintiffs will have been denied the ability to participate in their government in a way guaranteed by state and municipal authority,” the suit contends. “Plaintiffs have no adequate remedy at law because monetary damages fail to account for a city and its government acting beyond its authority and for Plaintiffs’ denial of their rights to participate in their local government.”
The suit also maintains that an injunction would “force the Washington County Correctional Facility Trust Authority to follow proper statutory procedure or select a new location for the county jail.”
The suit additionally contends that by voting to rezone the area, the Bartlesville City Council violated municipal code by not waiting one year before reconsidering. According to the suit, Bartlesville municipal code requires that when “an application for amendment to the regulations is denied, said application shall not be eligible for reconsideration for one year subsequent to such denial.”
The suit also contends that the Bartlesville City Council did not follow Oklahoma statutes by not giving 20 days prior notice to some property owners in the area and similarly violating the municipal code.
The suit additionally posits that the council is in violation of the requirements of the final site development plan and calls the re-vote “arbitrary and capricious.”
To view the complete petition that was filed, click HERE.
Sunday, September 28, 2008
Saturday, September 20, 2008
Attorneys Have Been Secured
Neighbors for Justice recognizes that the Bartlesville City Council has been faced with controversial situations and challenging times in recent months and years. The neighbors appreciate the service of each of the council members to the community of Bartlesville and the vital function that this council provides to the health and growth of this city.
However, the neighbors believe the action taken by the council on August 25, 2008 was unacceptable. This vote overturned a previous denial for zoning to allow a jail in a residential neighborhood. The neighbors do not see any opportunity at this time to correct that mistake other than via legal action.
With that being said, Neighbors For Justice would like to announce that they have secured the law firm Gibbs, Armstrong, Borochoff, Mullican & Hart to defend their cause.
This firm also represented the South Tulsa Citizens Coalition who fought against having a toll bridge built and were victorious this year at the Supreme Court.
However, the neighbors believe the action taken by the council on August 25, 2008 was unacceptable. This vote overturned a previous denial for zoning to allow a jail in a residential neighborhood. The neighbors do not see any opportunity at this time to correct that mistake other than via legal action.
With that being said, Neighbors For Justice would like to announce that they have secured the law firm Gibbs, Armstrong, Borochoff, Mullican & Hart to defend their cause.
This firm also represented the South Tulsa Citizens Coalition who fought against having a toll bridge built and were victorious this year at the Supreme Court.
Wednesday, September 10, 2008
Time Line
May 2005 Discussions of a new county jail begin as commissioners first heard a presentation on the potential project at a board meeting
2006 Treanor report is provided by consultants to the county describing recommended action regarding new jail facility.
On page 25, the report states this:
Proximity to Residential
Setting this facility away from residential areas insures that the eventual development in Washington County has the ability to be appropriately zoned for development near the facility in the future.
The Treanor Report scores possible locations on a scale of 0 to 6 possible. This report gives a 0 score for anything within 500 feet. There will be a number of residents living within 300 feet of this jail facility.
2006-2008: Various 'committees' work on 'matrices for appropriate sites' and select the current proposed site.
May 13, 2008: County Commissioner Mike Dunlap holds required public 'informational' hearing with property owners 300' or less from the perimeter of the proposed site. (City planner says the minutes submitted from the meeting reflected positive support from the neighbors - our observation was that 2-3 neighbors in support vs. 30-40 in opposition)
May 27, 2008: MAPC (Metro Area Planning Commission) holds public hearing, and votes 4-3 to deny re-zoning request after neighbors voice opposition.
June/July/Aug 2008: The county plans to appeal the MAPC vote to the city council. Neighbors collect signatures for the required 50% plus one to require a super-majority 4-1 vote to pass the appeal of the county at upcoming city council hearing.
Aug 18, 2008: County advises city council that if they deny the appeal, it will go to court. 'Mr. Maddux, city attorney, advises the city would 'almost certainly' lose in court after ~ 4 months of legal proceedings. City council proceeds to vote 3-2 to deny the county appeal anyway.
Aug 20, 2008: City announces that the item will be revisited on the agenda at the Monday, August 25th special meeting after council member Vic Holcomb 'received calls from his constituents urging him to reconsider.'
August 25, 2008: City council reverses its' decision even after ignoring many citizens and their legal concerns about the revote being illegal. Mr. Holcomb and Mr. Gorman both change their votes from no to yes.
September 23, 2008: Civil suit is filed against the Cityof Bartlesville and the City Council seeking a permanent injunction against use of the jail site.
November 4, 2008: Voters reject the Ballet Proposals for tax increases to fund the county jail.
November 24, 2008: City filed a response to the civil suit.
January, 2009: Trial date is set for March 23
March, 2009: Neighbors were adviced by counsel to drop the suit in leu of city council elections. Since that time, the neighbors have not been able to come up with the money to continue with a law suit.
June 9, 2009 - Voters will again be asked to fund a jail in the same residential location.
2006 Treanor report is provided by consultants to the county describing recommended action regarding new jail facility.
On page 25, the report states this:
Proximity to Residential
Setting this facility away from residential areas insures that the eventual development in Washington County has the ability to be appropriately zoned for development near the facility in the future.
The Treanor Report scores possible locations on a scale of 0 to 6 possible. This report gives a 0 score for anything within 500 feet. There will be a number of residents living within 300 feet of this jail facility.
2006-2008: Various 'committees' work on 'matrices for appropriate sites' and select the current proposed site.
May 13, 2008: County Commissioner Mike Dunlap holds required public 'informational' hearing with property owners 300' or less from the perimeter of the proposed site. (City planner says the minutes submitted from the meeting reflected positive support from the neighbors - our observation was that 2-3 neighbors in support vs. 30-40 in opposition)
May 27, 2008: MAPC (Metro Area Planning Commission) holds public hearing, and votes 4-3 to deny re-zoning request after neighbors voice opposition.
June/July/Aug 2008: The county plans to appeal the MAPC vote to the city council. Neighbors collect signatures for the required 50% plus one to require a super-majority 4-1 vote to pass the appeal of the county at upcoming city council hearing.
Aug 18, 2008: County advises city council that if they deny the appeal, it will go to court. 'Mr. Maddux, city attorney, advises the city would 'almost certainly' lose in court after ~ 4 months of legal proceedings. City council proceeds to vote 3-2 to deny the county appeal anyway.
Aug 20, 2008: City announces that the item will be revisited on the agenda at the Monday, August 25th special meeting after council member Vic Holcomb 'received calls from his constituents urging him to reconsider.'
August 25, 2008: City council reverses its' decision even after ignoring many citizens and their legal concerns about the revote being illegal. Mr. Holcomb and Mr. Gorman both change their votes from no to yes.
September 23, 2008: Civil suit is filed against the Cityof Bartlesville and the City Council seeking a permanent injunction against use of the jail site.
November 4, 2008: Voters reject the Ballet Proposals for tax increases to fund the county jail.
November 24, 2008: City filed a response to the civil suit.
January, 2009: Trial date is set for March 23
March, 2009: Neighbors were adviced by counsel to drop the suit in leu of city council elections. Since that time, the neighbors have not been able to come up with the money to continue with a law suit.
June 9, 2009 - Voters will again be asked to fund a jail in the same residential location.
Tuesday, September 9, 2008
The Journey via The Examiner Enterprise
Here is a list of news articles from the Examiner Enterprise concerning the Jail Project since May 2008. If you would like to read the complete article, click on the title and it will bring you to the article. There are also some excerpts of important points in italics after some of the articles.
May 20: County okays agreement with consultant on jail project
May 23: Jail Issues Debated: County officials, citizens weigh pros and cons of current plan
Some citizens questioned the site of the proposed facility which is a 5.4-acre tract bordered by Oak Avenue on the west, Adams Boulevard on the north and the railroad tracks on the east and south.The area is commonly known as the “railroad spur” on Bartlesville’s west side.“If we were going to do this in Colonial, it wouldn’t happen, but because of where it is, it is going to happen,” said one area resident. “They wouldn’t even let low income housing even come down by Colonial in 2004.”Herndon responded, “Modern jails make wonderful neighbors.”
May 25: Jail: How did we get here?
May 28: Jail Plan Hits Snag: MAPC denies rezoning request; Dunlap says no July 29 election
A halt in progress on the project could put the county in a precarious situation with the state jail inspector and the state fire marshal. The jail inspector may use the Administrative Compliance Act, to levy fines against a county for up to $10,000 per day.Commissioners are also looking down the barrel of a recent jail visit by the State Fire Marshal. The fire marshal report stated, “the number of inmates shall be reduced immediately.” The report, dated May 20, requires that a plan of correction be submitted within 30 days.
June 4: Jail Cost Debated: Committee members call for reduction in project price tag
“I’ve been doing this for a long time. People say, ‘that’s too much.’ The longer you put this off, you’re increasing the cost of your jail.”
June 17: Commissioners grapple with jail issues, purchase
Amid pressure from state officials and citizens, members of the Board of Washington County Commissioners say they are working to complete the proposed county jail in a expedient and cost effective manner.
Dunlap said he still liked the proposed site and added that if the site changes then “the amount changes.”“The same processes we went through to get to this point would have to happen again,” he said.Commissioners voted to purchase the land in question before contracts on the parcels expire.
June 18: Neighbors Unhappy: Residents near proposed jail site voice displeasure
“You don’t live next door, you live across the tracks,” one resident told District 3 Commissioner Mike Dunlap. “I live next door and I don’t think this will benefit me at all.”“I’m not going to argue with you; I respect your opinion,” Dunlap responded
“Anybody in here knows that a resident does not want a jail in their front door, their back door, or their side door — period,” said one resident.
“Putting the jail in that particular area, it’s a residential area. We all have children, we all have loved ones. We do not want a jail there, first and foremost. You put a jail in my front yard — I have an issue with that, and I guarantee that anyone in here, no matter how much you try to pretty it up and make it sound good, you don’t want a jail in front of your front door either. Put it in your neighborhood and tell me that you wouldn’t feel the same way that we do.”
The woman also opined that the jail would not help the immediate community surrounding it.
“Is anything being offered to the community besides him (Dunlap) trying to tell me that it is going to beautify the neighborhood? I’m sorry that’s just not flying with me,” she said.
Another resident, “Since you all decided that it is going to be there, it is going to be there and there is nothing we can do … there’s nothing that we can do about it — it’s decided. It’s your world … you know how things run.”
Bartlesville City manager Ed Gordon commiserated with citizens, saying, “Do I want a jail next door to me? Of course not.”
June 27: Jail Views Aired: Some officials express frustration
“We’re two years in the past; we’ve got to move forward,” said committee Chairman Bill Beierschmitt. “We’ve got a time bomb, if you will, and it’s ticking. We’ve got to do whatever it takes to move it forward.”
July 8, 2008: Washington County Commission postpones new jail discussion item
“On Monday, Dunlap said that he didn’t want to delay the project any further. Discussions of a new county jail have been ongoing since commissioners first heard a presentation on the potential project in 2005.”
July 9: Jail Costs Trimmed: County officials reduce total square footage, cut price tag
July 15: Jail Funding Proposed: Committees call for combination of property, sales tax to pay for facility
District 3 Commissioner Mike Dunlap gave a brief report on a recent meeting with residents of the proposed jail site.
“I would love to sit here and tell you that they were 100 percent in favor and ready to jump forward but that wasn’t the case...” said Dunlap. “It’s not 100 percent supported but it wouldn’t be anywhere in Bartlesville.”
He added that with the addition of the jail “there’d be more of a law enforcement presence in the area obviously so that’s a plus.”
August 5: County Commission expects to close on jail property Friday
**Our Note: The County chose to close before the land was approved for rezoning- - In our opinion, they could have waited to close on the property until AFTER the land was rezoned.
August 12: Fines Threatened: State orders county officials to correct jail overcrowding
Washington County District 3 Commissioner Mike Dunlap announced at the board’s weekly meeting on Monday that the Department of Health could begin fining the county $500 per day, per prisoner over capacity not to exceed $10,000 a day. Unless the situation is addressed, the fines could begin in as little as two weeks.
“Obviously, it’s serious” said Dunlap of the order.
Officials were given two weeks to address the overcrowding issues.
August 17: City to consider jail site appeal, renaming park
(notice what Max Lutke/realtor says about west side property)
August 17: Not in My Backyard: Neighbors opposed to jail site
THIS WHOLE ARTICLE IS GOOD!!
August 19: Appeal Denied: City Council shoots down county request to rezone property for jail
THIS WHOLE ARTICLE GOOD!
Much discussion Monday centered around the current zoning of the proposed jail site, with City Attorney Jerry Maddux pointing out several types of businesses, including a public or private dump, that could be located there with no further action by the city. He (Maddux) also said that if the appeal was denied by the council, the county can challenge the ruling in district court, and that the city would have a hard time proving the jail would have more of a negative impact on the surrounding community than some other uses for which the property is already zoned.
(OUR NOTE: The property we are looking at is a residential and NONE of the above things are allowed in residential zoning. Mr. Maddux is talking about the 59% of land in this 5.4 acre tract that is zoned industrial- - -thus this argument is not valid)
“Zoning is what you call a legislative matter, which simply means that when the City Council makes a decision on zoning, the courts are supposed to sustain whatever decision the council makes if that decision is not arbitrary or capricious, or unreasonable,” Maddux said.
“Someone that challenges in court a decision of the City Council has a high burden of proving that the decision of the City Council is arbitrary and capacious and unreasonable. In this particular case, the burden for the City Council, if this (is) denied, would be to explain to the court why we would allow — and I’m sure you probably have the list … of what you call ‘bad’ or ‘horrible’ uses that are currently allowed.
“If the council were to deny this, we would have to be able to present a reasonable argument in court as to why these uses are acceptable to the council … and why a jail is unreasonable,” Maddux said. “Frankly, it would be a hard burden for us to sustain.”
There was also discussion about whether payment for a “westside development plan,” currently in the process of getting under way by the city, could be made a condition of approval of the rezoning. Maddux told the council such a condition would not be legal. (is this true?)
Holcomb also struggled with the issue, recalling the construction of a mental facility in a neighborhood in which he resided in Ponca City, due to a vote of the City Council. Holcomb said he moved from the area soon after, but returned later to find the neighborhood had deteriorated.
“I can’t do that to somebody,” he said. “But then again, we’ve got to have the jail. And it’s got to go somewhere.“This is the most difficult decision I’ve been faced with as a council member. I still don’t know how I’ll vote when my name is called.”
Holcomb followed Nikkel in voting “No,” resulting in applause from the audience as the four-fifths majority had not been met.Washington County Commissioners are expected to challenge the council decision in district court.
August 19: Dunlap: County to move forward; court challenge could be next “Obviously we’re disappointed,” Dunlap told the newspaper this morning. “We’ve got to move forward. We’ve got two large committees that were unanimous in their decision that was the best place to put the jail.”
The city attorney said that he thought we would win if the county challenged this in court,” said Dunlap. “That’s on the table as a possibility, but it’s something that we will discuss in our weekly meeting.”Despite the City Council’s decision, Dunlap said he still believes the site selected is appropriate.“I’m still committed to the site,” he said. “I fully believe that it is the right place to build a jail.”
THIS WHOLE ARTICLE GOOD & FULL OF INFORMATION
In response to the statements, City Attorney Jerry Maddux said the council legally had a right to reconsider the matter, as long as it was brought forth by a council member who initially voted in the majority and that it be revisited at the next available meeting.“Any legislative body has a right to reconsider the action that is has taken,” Maddux said. “Generally, the motion to reconsider must be presented by a person who voted in the majority on the first vote, and it must be done at the next available meeting.“That’s generally the law. We don’t have any written rule, it’s whatever the council decides. But generally, under Robert’s Rules of Order and others, the council does have the right to reconsider.”
(OUR NOTE: In an article dated May 20, 2008 Mr. Maddux says the council does not follow Robert’s Rule of Order. Click HERE to see that article. In our opinion, it seems the city choses what to follow based on what suits their agenda at the time)
Mr. Dronyk is exactly right,” Maddux said, “But then the question comes in, what is ‘denied?’ Is it a final denial? It is not a final denial when the council still has the ability to reconsider the issue.”
August 28: Jail Proposals Discussed: Gorman, Dunlap weigh in on budget issues
September 2: Dunlap: Old hospital not an option for jail
September 3: Jail Question Set for November Election
September 7: New jail will be a tough sell
The newspaper certainly agrees a new jail is desperately needed. However, other factors could still derail it. There is talk of a lawsuit by west side residents against the Bartlesville City Council which recently approved rezoning the much-debated jail property.
Any remaining controversy concerning the project will only make it that much more difficult to pass. In the next 60 days, supporters must embark on an intense information blitz to sell this project to the voting public.
August 24, 2008: Citizens File Suit: Residents living near proposed jail site seek a permanent injunction
The lawsuit, filed Tuesday by Neighbors for Justice LLC, seeks a permanent injunction against use of the jail site.
“If the injunction is not granted, plaintiffs will have been denied the ability to participate in their government in a way guaranteed by state and municipal authority,” the suit contends. “Plaintiffs have no adequate remedy at law because monetary damages fail to account for a city and its government acting beyond its authority and for Plaintiffs’ denial of their rights to participate in their local government.
The suit additionally contends that by voting to rezone the area, the Bartlesville City Council violated municipal code by not waiting one year before reconsidering. According to the suit, Bartlesville municipal code requires that when “an application for amendment to the regulations is denied, said application shall not be eligible for reconsideration for one year subsequent to such denial.”
September 28, 2008: Jail plan hits another obstacle
A group of west side residents finally pulled the trigger on an anticipated legal challenge to the City of Bartlesville’s decision to allow rezoning of property selected by Washington County officials for a new jail.
The civil lawsuit has been filed against the Bartlesville City Council by a group of citizens, “Neighbors for Justice LLC” who live in close proximity to the 5.4-acre tract just southwest of downtown. The citizens, who don’t want the new jail built near their neighborhood, seek a permanent injunction on grounds that the city violated municipal code by not waiting one year before reconsidering its action.
Readers will recall in May, the Metropolitan Area Planning Commission denied the county’s initial request to rezone the property. The Washington County Correctional Facility Trust appealed that decision to the Bartlesville City Council, which voted 3-2 to deny the appeal. However, the council reversed its decision just a week later and voted 4-1 to approve the request.
Citizen support for this jail plan was already shaky at best. This latest legal wrangling further clouds the issue, making voter approval in November very questionable.
May 20: County okays agreement with consultant on jail project
May 23: Jail Issues Debated: County officials, citizens weigh pros and cons of current plan
Some citizens questioned the site of the proposed facility which is a 5.4-acre tract bordered by Oak Avenue on the west, Adams Boulevard on the north and the railroad tracks on the east and south.The area is commonly known as the “railroad spur” on Bartlesville’s west side.“If we were going to do this in Colonial, it wouldn’t happen, but because of where it is, it is going to happen,” said one area resident. “They wouldn’t even let low income housing even come down by Colonial in 2004.”Herndon responded, “Modern jails make wonderful neighbors.”
May 25: Jail: How did we get here?
May 28: Jail Plan Hits Snag: MAPC denies rezoning request; Dunlap says no July 29 election
A halt in progress on the project could put the county in a precarious situation with the state jail inspector and the state fire marshal. The jail inspector may use the Administrative Compliance Act, to levy fines against a county for up to $10,000 per day.Commissioners are also looking down the barrel of a recent jail visit by the State Fire Marshal. The fire marshal report stated, “the number of inmates shall be reduced immediately.” The report, dated May 20, requires that a plan of correction be submitted within 30 days.
June 4: Jail Cost Debated: Committee members call for reduction in project price tag
“I’ve been doing this for a long time. People say, ‘that’s too much.’ The longer you put this off, you’re increasing the cost of your jail.”
June 17: Commissioners grapple with jail issues, purchase
Amid pressure from state officials and citizens, members of the Board of Washington County Commissioners say they are working to complete the proposed county jail in a expedient and cost effective manner.
Dunlap said he still liked the proposed site and added that if the site changes then “the amount changes.”“The same processes we went through to get to this point would have to happen again,” he said.Commissioners voted to purchase the land in question before contracts on the parcels expire.
June 18: Neighbors Unhappy: Residents near proposed jail site voice displeasure
“You don’t live next door, you live across the tracks,” one resident told District 3 Commissioner Mike Dunlap. “I live next door and I don’t think this will benefit me at all.”“I’m not going to argue with you; I respect your opinion,” Dunlap responded
“Anybody in here knows that a resident does not want a jail in their front door, their back door, or their side door — period,” said one resident.
“Putting the jail in that particular area, it’s a residential area. We all have children, we all have loved ones. We do not want a jail there, first and foremost. You put a jail in my front yard — I have an issue with that, and I guarantee that anyone in here, no matter how much you try to pretty it up and make it sound good, you don’t want a jail in front of your front door either. Put it in your neighborhood and tell me that you wouldn’t feel the same way that we do.”
The woman also opined that the jail would not help the immediate community surrounding it.
“Is anything being offered to the community besides him (Dunlap) trying to tell me that it is going to beautify the neighborhood? I’m sorry that’s just not flying with me,” she said.
Another resident, “Since you all decided that it is going to be there, it is going to be there and there is nothing we can do … there’s nothing that we can do about it — it’s decided. It’s your world … you know how things run.”
Bartlesville City manager Ed Gordon commiserated with citizens, saying, “Do I want a jail next door to me? Of course not.”
June 27: Jail Views Aired: Some officials express frustration
“We’re two years in the past; we’ve got to move forward,” said committee Chairman Bill Beierschmitt. “We’ve got a time bomb, if you will, and it’s ticking. We’ve got to do whatever it takes to move it forward.”
July 8, 2008: Washington County Commission postpones new jail discussion item
“On Monday, Dunlap said that he didn’t want to delay the project any further. Discussions of a new county jail have been ongoing since commissioners first heard a presentation on the potential project in 2005.”
July 9: Jail Costs Trimmed: County officials reduce total square footage, cut price tag
July 15: Jail Funding Proposed: Committees call for combination of property, sales tax to pay for facility
District 3 Commissioner Mike Dunlap gave a brief report on a recent meeting with residents of the proposed jail site.
“I would love to sit here and tell you that they were 100 percent in favor and ready to jump forward but that wasn’t the case...” said Dunlap. “It’s not 100 percent supported but it wouldn’t be anywhere in Bartlesville.”
He added that with the addition of the jail “there’d be more of a law enforcement presence in the area obviously so that’s a plus.”
August 5: County Commission expects to close on jail property Friday
**Our Note: The County chose to close before the land was approved for rezoning- - In our opinion, they could have waited to close on the property until AFTER the land was rezoned.
August 12: Fines Threatened: State orders county officials to correct jail overcrowding
Washington County District 3 Commissioner Mike Dunlap announced at the board’s weekly meeting on Monday that the Department of Health could begin fining the county $500 per day, per prisoner over capacity not to exceed $10,000 a day. Unless the situation is addressed, the fines could begin in as little as two weeks.
“Obviously, it’s serious” said Dunlap of the order.
Officials were given two weeks to address the overcrowding issues.
August 17: City to consider jail site appeal, renaming park
(notice what Max Lutke/realtor says about west side property)
August 17: Not in My Backyard: Neighbors opposed to jail site
THIS WHOLE ARTICLE IS GOOD!!
August 19: Appeal Denied: City Council shoots down county request to rezone property for jail
THIS WHOLE ARTICLE GOOD!
Much discussion Monday centered around the current zoning of the proposed jail site, with City Attorney Jerry Maddux pointing out several types of businesses, including a public or private dump, that could be located there with no further action by the city. He (Maddux) also said that if the appeal was denied by the council, the county can challenge the ruling in district court, and that the city would have a hard time proving the jail would have more of a negative impact on the surrounding community than some other uses for which the property is already zoned.
(OUR NOTE: The property we are looking at is a residential and NONE of the above things are allowed in residential zoning. Mr. Maddux is talking about the 59% of land in this 5.4 acre tract that is zoned industrial- - -thus this argument is not valid)
“Zoning is what you call a legislative matter, which simply means that when the City Council makes a decision on zoning, the courts are supposed to sustain whatever decision the council makes if that decision is not arbitrary or capricious, or unreasonable,” Maddux said.
“Someone that challenges in court a decision of the City Council has a high burden of proving that the decision of the City Council is arbitrary and capacious and unreasonable. In this particular case, the burden for the City Council, if this (is) denied, would be to explain to the court why we would allow — and I’m sure you probably have the list … of what you call ‘bad’ or ‘horrible’ uses that are currently allowed.
“If the council were to deny this, we would have to be able to present a reasonable argument in court as to why these uses are acceptable to the council … and why a jail is unreasonable,” Maddux said. “Frankly, it would be a hard burden for us to sustain.”
There was also discussion about whether payment for a “westside development plan,” currently in the process of getting under way by the city, could be made a condition of approval of the rezoning. Maddux told the council such a condition would not be legal. (is this true?)
Holcomb also struggled with the issue, recalling the construction of a mental facility in a neighborhood in which he resided in Ponca City, due to a vote of the City Council. Holcomb said he moved from the area soon after, but returned later to find the neighborhood had deteriorated.
“I can’t do that to somebody,” he said. “But then again, we’ve got to have the jail. And it’s got to go somewhere.“This is the most difficult decision I’ve been faced with as a council member. I still don’t know how I’ll vote when my name is called.”
Holcomb followed Nikkel in voting “No,” resulting in applause from the audience as the four-fifths majority had not been met.Washington County Commissioners are expected to challenge the council decision in district court.
August 19: Dunlap: County to move forward; court challenge could be next “Obviously we’re disappointed,” Dunlap told the newspaper this morning. “We’ve got to move forward. We’ve got two large committees that were unanimous in their decision that was the best place to put the jail.”
The city attorney said that he thought we would win if the county challenged this in court,” said Dunlap. “That’s on the table as a possibility, but it’s something that we will discuss in our weekly meeting.”Despite the City Council’s decision, Dunlap said he still believes the site selected is appropriate.“I’m still committed to the site,” he said. “I fully believe that it is the right place to build a jail.”
August 21, 2008: City to Reconsider: Council will revisit county jail property zoning appeal
In an unprecedented move, the Bartlesville City Council plans to revisit its vote on a rezoning appeal that, if passed, could make way for a new county jail, according to an agenda posted Wednesday.
The rezoning is necessary to move forward with plans to construct a county jail on the site. Washington County officials had hoped to put funding options for the project before voters in November
“As you know, I was quite torn on which way to vote on the item,” Holcomb told the newspaper this morning. “After the vote (last week), I was talking to a number of my constituents in Ward 5, who felt like that location was the best location.
“I know (the reconsideration) is somewhat of a novel concept, but I am ultimately responsible to the citizens of my ward. Since I was so torn on which way to vote, the ultimate decider for me was to represent my ward.“Since they asked me to reconsider my vote, I’m going to do so,” he said.
Asked if he plans to change his vote on Monday night, Holcomb said, “I think that’s obvious.”
August 26: Decision Reversed: City Council approves county’s jail property rezoning requestTHIS WHOLE ARTICLE GOOD & FULL OF INFORMATION
In response to the statements, City Attorney Jerry Maddux said the council legally had a right to reconsider the matter, as long as it was brought forth by a council member who initially voted in the majority and that it be revisited at the next available meeting.“Any legislative body has a right to reconsider the action that is has taken,” Maddux said. “Generally, the motion to reconsider must be presented by a person who voted in the majority on the first vote, and it must be done at the next available meeting.“That’s generally the law. We don’t have any written rule, it’s whatever the council decides. But generally, under Robert’s Rules of Order and others, the council does have the right to reconsider.”
(OUR NOTE: In an article dated May 20, 2008 Mr. Maddux says the council does not follow Robert’s Rule of Order. Click HERE to see that article. In our opinion, it seems the city choses what to follow based on what suits their agenda at the time)
Mr. Dronyk is exactly right,” Maddux said, “But then the question comes in, what is ‘denied?’ Is it a final denial? It is not a final denial when the council still has the ability to reconsider the issue.”
August 28: Jail Proposals Discussed: Gorman, Dunlap weigh in on budget issues
September 2: Dunlap: Old hospital not an option for jail
September 3: Jail Question Set for November Election
September 7: New jail will be a tough sell
The newspaper certainly agrees a new jail is desperately needed. However, other factors could still derail it. There is talk of a lawsuit by west side residents against the Bartlesville City Council which recently approved rezoning the much-debated jail property.
Any remaining controversy concerning the project will only make it that much more difficult to pass. In the next 60 days, supporters must embark on an intense information blitz to sell this project to the voting public.
August 24, 2008: Citizens File Suit: Residents living near proposed jail site seek a permanent injunction
The lawsuit, filed Tuesday by Neighbors for Justice LLC, seeks a permanent injunction against use of the jail site.
“If the injunction is not granted, plaintiffs will have been denied the ability to participate in their government in a way guaranteed by state and municipal authority,” the suit contends. “Plaintiffs have no adequate remedy at law because monetary damages fail to account for a city and its government acting beyond its authority and for Plaintiffs’ denial of their rights to participate in their local government.
The suit additionally contends that by voting to rezone the area, the Bartlesville City Council violated municipal code by not waiting one year before reconsidering. According to the suit, Bartlesville municipal code requires that when “an application for amendment to the regulations is denied, said application shall not be eligible for reconsideration for one year subsequent to such denial.”
September 28, 2008: Jail plan hits another obstacle
A group of west side residents finally pulled the trigger on an anticipated legal challenge to the City of Bartlesville’s decision to allow rezoning of property selected by Washington County officials for a new jail.
The civil lawsuit has been filed against the Bartlesville City Council by a group of citizens, “Neighbors for Justice LLC” who live in close proximity to the 5.4-acre tract just southwest of downtown. The citizens, who don’t want the new jail built near their neighborhood, seek a permanent injunction on grounds that the city violated municipal code by not waiting one year before reconsidering its action.
Readers will recall in May, the Metropolitan Area Planning Commission denied the county’s initial request to rezone the property. The Washington County Correctional Facility Trust appealed that decision to the Bartlesville City Council, which voted 3-2 to deny the appeal. However, the council reversed its decision just a week later and voted 4-1 to approve the request.
Citizen support for this jail plan was already shaky at best. This latest legal wrangling further clouds the issue, making voter approval in November very questionable.
Jail Issues Addressed at League of Women Voters Forum
Garrison(state jail inspector) began the meeting by saying if citizens had heard that he or the health department had said that the county has to build a new jail, that it was “totally erroneous.”“I don’t care … that you ever build a new jail but you’ve got to correct (the) problems in the jail now,” he said.When questioned on the issues of the acreage, Strong said the county paid almost $37,000 per acre for the site.
“I think that we could look at many different places in Bartlesville and find five acres for less than $37,000 an acre,” she said.
Another question concerned the price difference between the Delaware facility and the proposed Washington County facility.
“Delaware is dorm-style, whereas ours is a cell style,” Dunalp said. “It’s not apples for apples on the comparison.”
Monday, September 1, 2008
Our Mission
As concerned citizens, we want a responsible approach for a jail in Washington County.
We believe that a jail should be built, but only if it is built in a non-residential area.
We believe that a jail should be built, but only if it will not detrimentally affect the growth and financial condition of the area where it is built.
We believe that a jail should be built, but only if the City and County follow proper zoning regulations and standard procedures for zoning changes and zoning appeals.
We believe that a jail should be built, but only if the City and County attribute equal amounts of respect and dignity to all citizens of Bartlesville.
We believe that a jail should be built, but only if it is built in a non-residential area.
We believe that a jail should be built, but only if it will not detrimentally affect the growth and financial condition of the area where it is built.
We believe that a jail should be built, but only if the City and County follow proper zoning regulations and standard procedures for zoning changes and zoning appeals.
We believe that a jail should be built, but only if the City and County attribute equal amounts of respect and dignity to all citizens of Bartlesville.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
