Pendleton Council Seeks Reimbursement, Respect
There is a bit of a turf war going on between CPS/SCPA, 3CDC, and the Pendleton Neighborhood Council. CityBeat’s Stephanie Dunlap wrote a good piece about it last September.
Basically, CPS was looking into selling some properties. Some of the property was green space, which the PNC didn’t want to give up. They figured if CPS sold it to commercial interests, the green space would be developed. Moreover, the city ignored their development plans and made sort of a backroom deal with 3CDC. So the PNC filed a lawsuit to stop the sale.
Now, according to recent City Council minutes, they want the city to reimburse their legal costs from funds from something called the Neighborhood Support Program. According to the NSP website, it is intended:
It’s clear that the PNC’s lawsuit is community-related, but individual residents had to put up money for the lawsuit (it’s not like Pendleton has a law department). Should it be allowed to recoup some of its legal costs?
And what about the issue of community autonomy? Is it not reasonable that Pendleton’s residents should have more say about their own community than a group of corporate executives who never set foot there?
Basically, CPS was looking into selling some properties. Some of the property was green space, which the PNC didn’t want to give up. They figured if CPS sold it to commercial interests, the green space would be developed. Moreover, the city ignored their development plans and made sort of a backroom deal with 3CDC. So the PNC filed a lawsuit to stop the sale.
Now, according to recent City Council minutes, they want the city to reimburse their legal costs from funds from something called the Neighborhood Support Program. According to the NSP website, it is intended:
…to provide funds to community councils in support of neighborhood projects and activities. Many councils use these funds to assist with membership drives, publish newsletters, engage in beautification and clean-up activities, provide summer employment or cultural activities to neighborhood youth, and underwrite the cost of sending community leaders to workshops and other training and networking opportunities, among other things.
It’s clear that the PNC’s lawsuit is community-related, but individual residents had to put up money for the lawsuit (it’s not like Pendleton has a law department). Should it be allowed to recoup some of its legal costs?
And what about the issue of community autonomy? Is it not reasonable that Pendleton’s residents should have more say about their own community than a group of corporate executives who never set foot there?
posted by Queen City Forum Mag @ 11:46 AM
3 Comments:
At 2:42 PM ,
Anonymous said...
Great post. The Enquirer missed this story, maybe because Magaret Buchanan is on 3CDC's board.
Communities like Pendleton should have the right of self-determination.
CPS should work more closely with the community in the future. These residents should be reimbursed. Saving the only green space down there is certainly a worthy project.
It's too bad that they didn't get support from any of the candidates that were running for office.
At 1:59 PM ,
Anonymous said...
Jeffre supported this iniative from the start. As I recall, he was in favor of self-determination by local community councils.
Why is CPS so cash strapped? Could it have any thing to do with TIF financing of projects in the city and county?
I applaud the efforts of Ty Provosty and the Pendleton Neighborhood Association for spending the time, energy, and money required to bring focus to this important issue. If the neighbors don't join together to direct the development they will be left out.
At 6:20 PM ,
Anonymous said...
At the very heart of Mr Joshua Joseph's complaint or objections about our community's challenge to CPS, is this question:
Do citizens have the right to petition their government for redress of grievances?
We believe the First Amendment protects us as citizens and our civil liberties, and applies to our course of action as surely it does for all citizens. The right to petition for redress of grievances extends to all branches and all departments of government including the courts. The First Amendment's Petition Clause guarantees people the right to ask the government to provide relief for a wrong through the courts (litigation), to seek change, or other governmental action. Unfettered access to the courts is indeed but one aspect of the Petition Clause.
We sought change, and had the right to do this. We have a fundamental right to petition CPS, a government entity created by the State, and to seek justice if necessary in the courts. If we had not used all resources available to us, including a small amount of NSP funds, and had not sought legal counsel as a course of action, a course Mr Joshua Joseph would have presumably preferred we not pursue, we would risked suffering an unbearable, irreparable loss to our community if the greenspace had been sold. On behalf of our community and its public interest, we pursued the right course for the right reasons and made the right decisions. We were not derelict in our civic responsibilities and duties.
Our community's challenge to the sale of school property in Pendleton required diligent, steadfast efforts by community residents and also required expert, experienced, and competent legal counsel. For nine (9) months, our community has been facing a severe threat due to the proffered sale of the greenspace owned by Cincinnati Public Schools (CPS). In early August, CPS in its corporate capacity decided to sell the only large greenspace in our community per a temporary statute, ORC 206.10.21 which expired December 31, 2005.
If this public space had been sold pursuant to this statute, our community would have been destabilized and to an extent to which it would have been unable to recover. Not only would the greenspace have been lost forever if sold but, per the statute, this public space had to be used, after its sale, for commercial development. As a result of this threat, our once-past -- and hopefully future -- community park would have been converted to commercial use, for private use.
But for using a small amount of NSP funds to cover legal expenses, many citizens have worked tirelessly and entirely at no cost whatsoever to our neighbors, our community, or the City. As a result, by December 1, 2005, our persistent efforts coupled with our attorney's negotiations were successful: CPS withdrew the greenspace from its sell-list thereby granting a reprieve to our community to continue discussions with CPS and Cincinnati Park Board to preserve the greenspace. Our attorney successfully negotiated this result on our community's behalf, and both CPS and our community were spared from enjoining CPS by means of legal action.
Due to the language of ORC 206.10.21, its firm deadline, its statutory legal requirements for perfection, the absence of process perpetuated by CPS and its wholesale lack of substantive response to citizens' pleas, all compounded by the consequential threat to the quality of life for residents plus the risk of devaluation to property owners' investments should this greenspace be sold, we would have been derelict to have not sought the counsel of a good lawyer. Without legal counsel, we would have surely risked not meeting our objective to preserve the greenspace as a city-owned community park. The property law issues were highly complex, even complicated. Very simply, the risks were too high, the threat too severe, the consequences too negative to forego the aid of legal counsel for any reason.
Any monetary short-term benefit to CPS that would have been gained by selling this greenspace did not, and still does not, justify the severe long-term costs nor the irreparable loss to our community. Residents bear many problems in Pendleton which we have not caused nor can control. Despite the street crime, for example, the greenspace has remained peaceable, safe, and enjoyed by everyone. It is the heart of our urban community, our beloved public space. The cost in NSP funds used for the benefit of legal counsel compared to the enormous costs of losing this space is extremely small, if not insignificant.
If this property is ever sold to developers and thus not transferred to the City, the injury to each resident and property owner is permanent and irreparable forever. Because we may still lose this property to private uses, our community's stability remains in jeopardy, our quality of life remains at risk.
We can only presume Mr Joshua Joseph's preferred choice would have been to waive a challenge on behalf of our community; to not deploy our best efforts using all resources available; to forfeit our rights to assemble, petition and fully express our views; and, to not assert our legal rights -- with or without an attorney. In our view, Mr Joseph's course would have unquestionably put our community at an even greater risk for the irretrievable loss of this public space essential to our quality of life. We would have been sorely remiss to have saved but a few thousand dollars in NSP grant funds and, at the same time, risk losing the greenspace as a result. Leaving a small tip on the table so we could forfeit the treasure was not an option for our community and its residents.
As for Mr Joshua Joseph's objections, we do not understand why he wrote to a City Councilmember although we recognize his right to do so. It would have been far easier for Mr Joseph, and clearly preferable for his neighbors, if Mr Joseph would have attended our community council meetings, or attended public coalition meetings about CPS's decisions, or read the messages posted to our community's yahoo-group about these matters, or made even a small effort to ask questions and seek clarity. He chose to not do these things.
To be clear, Mr Joshua Joseph has not attended any PNC meetings since August 2005 when, as a member of the Nominating Committee, he started shouting and creating a furious argument about the qualifications of the recommended slate although, strangely enough, he had (1) met with his co-Committee members; (2) never objected to any person's nomination; and, (3) approved the Committee's slate. And still, a month later during the September 2005 Annual meeting, councilmembers voted to elect him as Trustee (he had nominated himself).
Yet the pattern of surprise continues: Since last August, Mr Joshua Joseph has not attended a PNC meeting, has not brought his questions or concerns to the attention of our council, has not indicated he was unclear about our council's goals, and had not advised he had sent an objection to Councilmember Cole on November 16, 2005. Instead, about three (3) months later, he sent a message to our yahoo-group resigning his position as Trustee on February 6, 2006. However, since Mr Joseph never paid dues last September (or since), he could not resign as a Trustee because he was not a paid member of our community council.
We find Mr Joshua Joseph's message dated November 16, 2005 bewildering in light of his nonparticipation and silence. On its surface, his message appears to be a close cousin to the intent of a SLAPP suit: the so-called Strategic Lawsuits Against Public Participation which are sometimes filed against citizens for speaking out about a range of public matters before city councils, county commissions, school boards and other agencies. From a First Amendment standpoint, SLAPPs are a disturbing attempt to use the law, or political measures, to suppress and punish citizens' exercise of their right to petition government regarding matters of public concern.
http://www.firstamendmentcenter.org/petition/overview.aspx
SLAPP targets have been sued or questioned for engaging in a wide variety of protected speech and protected expression activities, including:
* complaining to school officials about...unsafe conditions in the school
* speaking at a public meeting
* reporting unlawful activities
* speaking as an officer of an active public interest group
* filing a public interest lawsuit
http://www.thefirstamendment.org/slapp.html
In the future, we believe Mr Joseph should take his own advice
(This is an email posted by Joshua Joseph on October 19, 2004):
From: "jdj_3"
Reply-To: pendletonneighborhoodcouncil@yahoogroups.com
Date: Tue Oct 19, 2004 9:02 am
Subject: Re: How to increase membership | was "13 Unlucky for [...]"
Non-participation in community function is always a problem. It's not only poor people who don't participate in the process. That's what the "silent majority" concept was all about. It was a great idea, to label the people who didn't speak out, and then claim that they agreed with you. We haveReagan's brain trust to thank for that.
What we have to hope is that there will be a few who speak out, or we have benevolent council members who try to represent the poorest of their constituency. Empathy is a good thing, let's hope we have at least a few people on council who have that attribute.
David - if you feel we don't have council members with these attributes, please attend the meetings, and help make the process better. Don't just tell us what is wrong with it from the sidelines.
- Joshua [Joseph]
--------------------------------------------
NOTES
The right to petition allows citizens to focus government attention on unresolved ills; provide information to elected leaders about unpopular policies; expose misconduct, waste, corruption, and incompetence; and vent popular frustrations without endangering the public order.
"Petitioning" has come to signify any nonviolent, legal means ofencouraging or disapproving government action, whether directed to the judicial, executive or legislative branch. Lobbying, letter-writing, e-mail campaigns, testifying before tribunals, filing lawsuits, supporting referenda, collecting signatures for ballot initiatives, peaceful protests and picketing: all public articulation of issues, complaints and interests designed to spur government action qualifies under the petition clause, even if the activities partake of other First Amendment freedoms.
The U.S. Supreme Court has affirmed that the right to engage in such activity is a fundamental liberty, protected against encroachment by federal, state and local governments.
http://www.firstamendmentcenter.org/petition/overview.aspx
Post a Comment
Subscribe to Post Comments [Atom]
<< Home