Stuck with the quality of life vote?

It would appear that we will not be allowed to have an election to revoke permission for issuing the bonds for the arena.

There may be more recent case law, but the most recent case we can find dealing with the issue is the 1932 appeals court case Orr v. Marrs.

In that case the voters approved a bond issue for a school district.  Subsequently three-fourths of the registered voters signed a petition asking that the bonds not be issued.  The school board agreed and issued an order rescinding the vote of the taxpayers.

From the court’s decision:

It is fundamental that voters of a district can only exercise such powers as are conferred by statute, either expressly or by implication. All powers not expressly or by implication conferred are excluded. The power to rescind the former vote for the bond issue not being expressly given by the statute, it may not be, it is believed, reasonably implied. The power to vote on a bond issue implies the power to vote against it, but not to vote to rescind it after it has been regularly authorized.

If the Legislature had intended to grant the right of withdrawal of the vote, it could easily have been expressed.

New laws may have been passed that would allow a vote to rescind a bond vote but we have not been able to find any.

Just don’t issue a contract

At this point it would appear that our only hope of not building the arena is for city council to fail to authorize construction.

If they do nothing the arena will not be built.

That would open up the possibility of a mandamus action that would seek to compel each city representative to vote to approve construction.  A problem there would be that each city representative could vote no on a proposed construction contract if they thought the contract was not in the public’s better interest.

We deserve better


11 Responses to Stuck with the quality of life vote?

  1. If that is all it takes, then by all means, CC members need to finally do something that is in the best interests of the citizens! Do not issue a contract. How simple!


  2. Jud Burgess says:

    How about this…some of the projects that were part of the 2012 QOL bond were quoted incorrectly and subsequently came up short. Claudia Perez and Dr. Noe both tried to sneak a public meeting that would have issued $44,000,000 in COs that would NOT have required a vote from the public. Part of these COs were $$$ to make up the shortfall, forcing the taxpayer to pay it. That sounds to me like a breach of the original contract with the voters…not being able to deliver A, B and C for the $$$ agreed on. If there is a breach of contract on the city side, does that nullify the vote or open the City up for a lawsuit? Maybe a Class Action lawsuit? There maybe something here…


    • anonymous says:

      The downtown developers would likewise file a lawsuit to force the construction of the arena. Their pockets are deeper and once again the city would spend a small fortune on legal fees to answer any lawsuits. The only winners would be the lawyers, consultants, and the people being paid interest on any bonds already drawn down for the arena.


      • What grounds would those downtown developers have for filing any kind of lawsuit? I do not think they could do such a thing.


        • Disgusted says:

          They have as much of a right to file a suit as anyone else. Jud proposed a class action suit to stop the project. The developers could back a class action suit on behalf of voters to force the City to follow through on building the arena per the QOL bond vote.


        • Disgusted says:

          This is from a class action lawsuit website:

          “While there is technically no minimum number of people needed for a class action, it is difficult (although not unheard of) to get a case with fewer than 40 individuals certified. It only takes one person to file a class action lawsuit, but in order for a class action to proceed, a judge must first certify the class.”


  3. JerryK says:

    The PAC crowd who paid good money in anticipation of contracts would go ballistic.


  4. Haiduc says:

    The Big money is burning a hole in our pockets!


  5. Disgusted says:

    Multiple administrations and councils share responsibility for the broken promises, budgetary fiascos, and failed implementation of the QOL projects. Gonzalez can no longer simply blame his predecessor and some of the current council members were party to this mess. The city is just now holding meetings to get public input regarding a children’s museum. The QOL fiasco tells any large company that they do not want to locate here. It’s also one more reason for people to not want to live here. But the ballpark we gifted to Foster Hunt was built in one year, on time, but over budget.


Leave a Reply -- you do not have to enter your email address

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out /  Change )

Google photo

You are commenting using your Google account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.

%d bloggers like this: