Next danger point for Lost Dog

Congratulations to the supporters of Lost Dog.

As we know the election will force city council to pass an ordinance that protects the area from development.

City council can in the future pass a new ordinance that would override the ordinance thus making the land available for development.

The city council representatives are not likely to do this from fear that overriding the initiative  ordinance will hurt their chances for re-election.

The next regular city council election will be in 2020.  Three of our current city representatives will not be eligible for election but will sit in office until new members are sworn in, so they could vote for a new ordinance between the election and swearing in day.

The period between the next election and when the winners take office is the most dangerous.

If the four city representatives that are scheduled for re-election in 2020 get re-elected they could vote to override the ordinance with no fear of hurting their chances for re-election.  Why?  They can only serve two terms.  If they get re-elected they cannot be elected yet another time so fear of public backlash will be minimized–they cannot run again and thus the voters don’t matter.  Combine those four with the three that will be lame ducks and you have seven representatives that can vote without hurting their chances.  They simply have to have the vote between election day and the day new members are sworn in.

City council members can still be recalled but  now it will  the signatures of 20% of the people who are eligible to vote in that district in order to call a recall election.

We deserve better


9 Responses to Next danger point for Lost Dog

  1. Tom Busch says:

    Thank you Brutus.


  2. Anonymous says:

    There are plans to use certain funds that have specifically been earmarked for the purchase of open space to buy the parcel and donate it to the state to become a part of Franklin Mountain State Park.


    • Anonymous says:

      Why can’t EPWU just donate it to the state? It seems crazy to use taxpayer money to buy public land to donate to a state park.


  3. Anonymous says:

    This is an example of where term limits can be harmful. Maybe


  4. Throwing Shade says:

    Lame ducks might also be enticed to vote to override the ordinance if they know they will receive financial rewards from developers after leaving office. Nah, what am I thinking? No one on city council would do something shady like that.


  5. Marc Salazar says:

    If council tries to undo or override the ordinance, maybe the people will have to do another petition.


  6. Northeaster says:

    What is your source for the possibility of an overriding ordinance to prevent the results of the vote?


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

Please log in using one of these methods to post your comment: Logo

You are commenting using your 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: