Dear Friends,
There is no question that a new jail is a legitimate need for our community. However, the County’s current plans for the jail site involve meeting that legitimate need in an illegitimate way.
Imagine if the county decided to put the jail next to your church or your child’s school; you would not agree with that decision or vote for that site. Now imagine that the county decided to put the jail next to your home. You certainly would have a problem with that site and you would hope and pray that your fellow citizens would support your opposition to such an inappropriate and incompatible addition to your neighborhood.
If Washington County voters approve the new taxes for the jail on June 9th, they will also be approving a jail site that is in the middle of a neighborhood. One family on Oak will literally walk out of their front door, walk across the street, and be on the jail campus. When they sit on their front porch, they will be looking at a jail. May it never be!
If Washington County voters approve the new taxes for the jail on June 9th, what will history say about that decision? Will it be a flagrant example of maltreatment of the poor? Will it be viewed as a discriminatory act against the African-American community? Will it a brazen illustration of the powerful taking advantage of the weak?
I urge Washington County voters to exercise the Golden Rule when you step into the voting booth on June 9th; do to others what you would have them do to you.
Sincerely,
Sonja Settle
After Sonja sent out this email, she received an inquiry about what her solution would be if we all voted no. Here is how she responded:
I think that that is a great question; thank you for taking the time to ask!
First, this problem (what happens if we vote no) would not be a problem if the County had not "jumped the gun" and purchased the property BEFORE it was properly zoned. If they had not done that last year, then when the Metropolitan Area Planning Commission voted down their proposal to rezone for a jail (on May 27th, last year) then the county could have "dusted themselves off" and proceeded with their plans on another site. They quite possibly could have broken ground on something during this past year. Instead, their problem then became the City's (as in City Council) when the County appealed the MAPC decision. The City Council knew it was wrong, which was why they first voted NOT to rezone to allow for the jail. And then they broke their own statute (and the law) when they revoted a week later. And now, here we are -- again . . .
I still say that this problem is THEIRS (the County's) not ours. I believe that they should sell the property and start over with plans on a different site that is at least 1/4 mile away from a residential area (like their own Treanor Report recommends). I have heard of many different businesses and prospects thrown around about what would go great there; my personal favorite would be for someone to develop loft apartments or for Habitat for Humanity to buy it. Other ideas have been a neighborhood grocery/market. Or a Christian school. Or a baseball field. Restaurants. And such a plan could be worked out with the help of the BDC.
Also, you will hear the argument that the jail needs to be near the courthouse because of transport issues. However, a police official, whom I will allow to remain anonymous, stated that transport is NOT an issue because they have to pick these prisoners up all over the county anyway to bring them here. (I think he has possibly done a 180 on this statement). Therefore, there are LOTS of viable sites that do not involve a neighborhood.
The bottom line is that these neighbors went through the proper procedures (months of work to get the formal petition filed), and yet were treated with a different standard than any other neighborhood would have been treated. It is a flagrant example of "unequal weight and measure"; and it shows a weakness in our local government.
Proverbs 29:7
The righteous care about justice for the poor, but the wicked have no such concern.
Proverbs 21:13
If a man shuts his ears to the cry of the poor, he too will cry out and not be answered.
Proverbs 19:17
He who is kind to the poor lends to the LORD, and he will reward him for what he has done.
Showing posts with label Letter to Editor. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Letter to Editor. Show all posts
Thursday, May 28, 2009
Thursday, December 4, 2008
Is This Really the Best Jail Site?
Below is a letter submitted by Luwana Brewster and published in the Examiner Enterprise.
Dear Editor,
After attending the county commissioner’s meeting on Monday (November 10th), I became overwhelmingly aware of some things that I would like to bring to the attention of the voters.
Neighbors for Justice have been trying for months to get copies of the individual scoring sheets from the site selection committee with no luck. The only thing the county would provide was a single sheet with the final scores. We have come to realize that they have no documentation as to how they came up with their final scores. All we currently have is the county's word because they have either lost, discarded or destroyed the original documents. Those documents are public record. I believe the county should be forced to provide the documentation proving that this site scored the highest.
However, even if the commissioners could show documentation that this site scored the highest of the six, I would argue that the process they used for choosing the six was not a fair process to begin with. There were only six sites chosen based on recommendations by the committee to be scored. Five of the six sites chosen were on the WEST side of Bartlesville and the sixth was in a flood plain. There was not one individual on the selection committee representing the West side of Bartlesville. Does this not seem arbitrarily stacked against the West side of Bartlesville?
Why were no other viable locations scored, like for instance, the Industrial Park? Well, sources from the site selection committee were quite open about the fact that there was one particular individual who would not allow the Industrial Park to be on that list, even though some members of this committee believe that it is the best place to build the jail.
We know that the Industrial Park has up to 8 available acres for sale- - -it is listed on the city’s website. It is on a major highway with utilities already available, it is away from all residential areas and the city already owns it. A city official said they and the county are “dipping into the same pocket” to fund this new jail, then, I believe that the city and the county need to come together and work out a deal to get this jail built at the Industrial Park and keep the cost of this proposal to a minimum.
It is obvious to county voters that the processes used thus far have FAILED! Thus it is time for NEW processes. It is time for a new site selection committee that is not biased, it is time for a new architect and new consulting. It is time to research surrounding counties to see what has worked or not worked for them. It is time for us to research more cost effective ways of building this jail.
Luwana Brewster
Bartlesville, OK
Dear Editor,
After attending the county commissioner’s meeting on Monday (November 10th), I became overwhelmingly aware of some things that I would like to bring to the attention of the voters.
Neighbors for Justice have been trying for months to get copies of the individual scoring sheets from the site selection committee with no luck. The only thing the county would provide was a single sheet with the final scores. We have come to realize that they have no documentation as to how they came up with their final scores. All we currently have is the county's word because they have either lost, discarded or destroyed the original documents. Those documents are public record. I believe the county should be forced to provide the documentation proving that this site scored the highest.
However, even if the commissioners could show documentation that this site scored the highest of the six, I would argue that the process they used for choosing the six was not a fair process to begin with. There were only six sites chosen based on recommendations by the committee to be scored. Five of the six sites chosen were on the WEST side of Bartlesville and the sixth was in a flood plain. There was not one individual on the selection committee representing the West side of Bartlesville. Does this not seem arbitrarily stacked against the West side of Bartlesville?
Why were no other viable locations scored, like for instance, the Industrial Park? Well, sources from the site selection committee were quite open about the fact that there was one particular individual who would not allow the Industrial Park to be on that list, even though some members of this committee believe that it is the best place to build the jail.
We know that the Industrial Park has up to 8 available acres for sale- - -it is listed on the city’s website. It is on a major highway with utilities already available, it is away from all residential areas and the city already owns it. A city official said they and the county are “dipping into the same pocket” to fund this new jail, then, I believe that the city and the county need to come together and work out a deal to get this jail built at the Industrial Park and keep the cost of this proposal to a minimum.
It is obvious to county voters that the processes used thus far have FAILED! Thus it is time for NEW processes. It is time for a new site selection committee that is not biased, it is time for a new architect and new consulting. It is time to research surrounding counties to see what has worked or not worked for them. It is time for us to research more cost effective ways of building this jail.
Luwana Brewster
Bartlesville, OK
Saturday, November 1, 2008
Why Vote NO on Jail Funding?
Editor,
Everyone knows Washington County needs a new jail. They know the City is being sued over the proposed location of the new jail. And they also know on Nov. 4th they will have to vote yes or no to raise sales tax and property taxes to pay for the new jail. All the while, the City Council and City Attorney pretend they have no idea what's going on. Confusion abounds. Who is doing what to whom and why? I want to try and shed some light on exactly what is happening.
The law suit petition, which is public information, can be found on several web sites so if I can find it, so can you. Google is our friend!
Several months ago, Washington County asked the City to re-zone 5.4 acres at Oak and Adams to build a new jail. Fifty-one percent of the property owners within a 300 foot radius signed a petition protesting a jail in their neighborhood. At the zoning hearing, the MAPC denied the County's request for rezoning. Washington County appealed the MAPC decision to the City Council on August 18th. The City Council denied the appeal by a 3 to 2 vote. One week later, on August 25th, the City Council reversed their vote and approved the County’s re-zoning request. Council member Vic Holcomb changed his vote under pressure from people in his ward. Just before he voted, Vic asked City Attorney Jerry Maddux if what they were about to do was legal. Mr. Maddux said that under "general law and Robert's Rules of Order" they can re-vote until they came to a "final, final" decision. Shorty thereafter, folks in the immediate neighborhood formed Neighbors for Justice, found legal representation and sued the City of Bartlesville asking for a permanent injunction against building the new jail at Oak and Adams.
Here's why the City is being sued. Our City Charter says any ordinance, other than an emergency, goes into affect "the day following publication" in the local newspaper. (Oklahoma Statute Title 11, 1-102(8)(a) also references this.) On August 19th, the day after the City Council's vote to deny Washington County's re-zoning request, the Examiner-Enterprise reported on the denial in its daily edition. Oklahoma Supreme Court decisions and State zoning decisions make it clear zoning laws have the same weight as an "ordinance." This makes the August 18th vote the elusive "final, final" decision Mr. Maddux was looking for.
The City also violated Bartlesville Municipal Code when they re-voted August 25th because a denied re-zoning request can not be brought back for reconsideration for one year after it is denied.
Not only did the illegal revote of August 25th violate the "wait one year" rule but OK Title 11, sec 43-106 requires a "twenty (days) notice prior to the hearing by mailing written notice" to property owners within a 300 foot radius of the proposed rezoning area. Bartlesville Municipal Code Appendix A, sec 7.653 also requires a 20 day notice and public hearing. The City violated OK Title 11 and Municipal Code by failing to give written notice and hold a public hearing. You can't cram 20 days into one week no matter how hard you push.
Are you still with me? I'm almost done. Washington County presented a different development plan to the City Council than the one they originally presented to the MAPC. Once again the City violated their own Municipal Code which requires the final site plan be substantially the same as the preliminary site plan.
So what does all this mean? Did I mention I'm not a lawyer? But if I can read and understand this stuff, so can you.
What this all means is that the City Council re-voted just because they wanted to and thought no one would notice. Well, the neighborhood certainly noticed. They noticed that their right to due process had been denied "just because" Washington County and the City Council wanted to build a new jail where they thought it could be put without protest. I think a lawsuit can be considered a protest, don't you? If this were in your neighborhood, I doubt if you would say, sure, cool, build the new jail right across from my house.
Mr. Maddux stated that "general law and Robert's Rules of Order" gives the Council the authority to vote again until they reach a "final, final" vote. That seems ridiculous to me because the Council has never adopted Robert's Rules of Order as their governing authority. Besides, since when does Robert’s Rules or “general law” trump Oklahoma State laws, Bartlesville City Charter and Municipal Code? The City should be nervous, very nervous.
Nov. 4th we are being asked to approve a half cent sales tax increase AND a property tax increase to build a new county jail. But we have no idea where it will be built because of this lawsuit. Does this make sense to you?
Don’t let the County or the City or anyone else tell you that the State requires we build a new jail. Don Garrison, State Jail Inspector, stated at the League of Women Voters’ forum that no one has mandated that the county must build a new jail. “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. That can mean farming out prisoners or fixing the old jail – or building a new jail.
What can YOU do? Tell Washington County to find a location for the new jail at least 1/4 mile from any residential neighborhood BEFORE they ask you to vote on new taxes. Wait to find out what the real costs will be if the lawsuit is successful and the jail site is forced to move. As County Commissioner Mike Dunlap has so helpfully pointed out, the tax approval ballot will be "yellow" to distinguish it from the others. Vote NO on the yellow ballot!
George Henshaw
Bartlesville
Everyone knows Washington County needs a new jail. They know the City is being sued over the proposed location of the new jail. And they also know on Nov. 4th they will have to vote yes or no to raise sales tax and property taxes to pay for the new jail. All the while, the City Council and City Attorney pretend they have no idea what's going on. Confusion abounds. Who is doing what to whom and why? I want to try and shed some light on exactly what is happening.
The law suit petition, which is public information, can be found on several web sites so if I can find it, so can you. Google is our friend!
Several months ago, Washington County asked the City to re-zone 5.4 acres at Oak and Adams to build a new jail. Fifty-one percent of the property owners within a 300 foot radius signed a petition protesting a jail in their neighborhood. At the zoning hearing, the MAPC denied the County's request for rezoning. Washington County appealed the MAPC decision to the City Council on August 18th. The City Council denied the appeal by a 3 to 2 vote. One week later, on August 25th, the City Council reversed their vote and approved the County’s re-zoning request. Council member Vic Holcomb changed his vote under pressure from people in his ward. Just before he voted, Vic asked City Attorney Jerry Maddux if what they were about to do was legal. Mr. Maddux said that under "general law and Robert's Rules of Order" they can re-vote until they came to a "final, final" decision. Shorty thereafter, folks in the immediate neighborhood formed Neighbors for Justice, found legal representation and sued the City of Bartlesville asking for a permanent injunction against building the new jail at Oak and Adams.
Here's why the City is being sued. Our City Charter says any ordinance, other than an emergency, goes into affect "the day following publication" in the local newspaper. (Oklahoma Statute Title 11, 1-102(8)(a) also references this.) On August 19th, the day after the City Council's vote to deny Washington County's re-zoning request, the Examiner-Enterprise reported on the denial in its daily edition. Oklahoma Supreme Court decisions and State zoning decisions make it clear zoning laws have the same weight as an "ordinance." This makes the August 18th vote the elusive "final, final" decision Mr. Maddux was looking for.
The City also violated Bartlesville Municipal Code when they re-voted August 25th because a denied re-zoning request can not be brought back for reconsideration for one year after it is denied.
Not only did the illegal revote of August 25th violate the "wait one year" rule but OK Title 11, sec 43-106 requires a "twenty (days) notice prior to the hearing by mailing written notice" to property owners within a 300 foot radius of the proposed rezoning area. Bartlesville Municipal Code Appendix A, sec 7.653 also requires a 20 day notice and public hearing. The City violated OK Title 11 and Municipal Code by failing to give written notice and hold a public hearing. You can't cram 20 days into one week no matter how hard you push.
Are you still with me? I'm almost done. Washington County presented a different development plan to the City Council than the one they originally presented to the MAPC. Once again the City violated their own Municipal Code which requires the final site plan be substantially the same as the preliminary site plan.
So what does all this mean? Did I mention I'm not a lawyer? But if I can read and understand this stuff, so can you.
What this all means is that the City Council re-voted just because they wanted to and thought no one would notice. Well, the neighborhood certainly noticed. They noticed that their right to due process had been denied "just because" Washington County and the City Council wanted to build a new jail where they thought it could be put without protest. I think a lawsuit can be considered a protest, don't you? If this were in your neighborhood, I doubt if you would say, sure, cool, build the new jail right across from my house.
Mr. Maddux stated that "general law and Robert's Rules of Order" gives the Council the authority to vote again until they reach a "final, final" vote. That seems ridiculous to me because the Council has never adopted Robert's Rules of Order as their governing authority. Besides, since when does Robert’s Rules or “general law” trump Oklahoma State laws, Bartlesville City Charter and Municipal Code? The City should be nervous, very nervous.
Nov. 4th we are being asked to approve a half cent sales tax increase AND a property tax increase to build a new county jail. But we have no idea where it will be built because of this lawsuit. Does this make sense to you?
Don’t let the County or the City or anyone else tell you that the State requires we build a new jail. Don Garrison, State Jail Inspector, stated at the League of Women Voters’ forum that no one has mandated that the county must build a new jail. “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. That can mean farming out prisoners or fixing the old jail – or building a new jail.
What can YOU do? Tell Washington County to find a location for the new jail at least 1/4 mile from any residential neighborhood BEFORE they ask you to vote on new taxes. Wait to find out what the real costs will be if the lawsuit is successful and the jail site is forced to move. As County Commissioner Mike Dunlap has so helpfully pointed out, the tax approval ballot will be "yellow" to distinguish it from the others. Vote NO on the yellow ballot!
George Henshaw
Bartlesville
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
