Council approaches compromise on business moratorium
Last week's kerfuffle over a proposal to ease the city's restrictions against 99 cent and convenience stores calmed down Tuesday when the council's legislative committee was able to make a deal that make it easier for discount stores to set up shop in San Bernardino.
The committee consists of 3rd Ward CouncilmanTobin Brinker, 6th Ward Councilman Rikke Van Johnson and 7th Ward Councilwoman Wendy McCammack. At a special meeting Tuesday, the three agreed that developers planning 99 cent stores could submit their proposals to the city as long as those stores have at least 15,000 square feet of space.
At present, new 99 cent stores are generally prohibited under a moratorium designed to create a legal force field blocking 12 types of businesses that city officials say contribute to blight. Such businesses include tatoo parlors, smoke shops and small tire shops.
During the Jan. 20 City Council meeting, officials engaged in a heated argument over Brinker's proposal to change the moratorium. Brinker was particularly incensed that the City Attorney's Office declared that his idea - allowing the council to make case-by-case exemptions to the moratorium - would be unconstitutional on the basis that a lack of objective criteria would violate developers' due process.
But a 15,000 square foot minimum would establish an objective standard for any developer seeking an entitlement for a new 99 cent store. A revised law to allow for that change could go before the committee in February.
The question of how to revise the moratorium may be revised in favor of convenience stores has yet to be answered.
2 Comments
Leave a comment
About SB Now Blog
Andrew Edwards. E-mail Andrew here.
OBJECTIVITY
Here in lies the problem.
We go thru life with rules and regulations and laws, that are supposedly black and white.
But , comes along a judge, or council who uses the "wet finger in the wind" to decide how to interpret said rules, regs and laws , and you are now in the "grey area of doubt and confusion". That breeds assumptions, loose interpretations and inconsistencies, and that leads to lawsuits.
You make a law, rule or regulation, it must meet the "muster of OBJECTIVITY", or you have what we had on the 20 th of January at the dias, and many other appeals to council over development/ planning department decisions in the past.
Decisions that could have been correct in the first place, if the regulation was objective and consistant.
Government proliferates laws and regulations and many are catch 22 and/or subjective, and citizenry and even lawyers, have no clue how a judge/ council/ arbitrator will rule .
Jan 20 th was a disgrace to the dias, trying to bulldog a motion thru, even against city attorney's advice, is silly, and that made tha actors look the same.
Now, is the new regulation ,( how ever it is written, ) going to be revisited again for some loosely written section or inconsistancy??????
Maybe the Moratorium itself, is just to loose to start with!
Does the whole document meet the "MUSTER of OBJECTIVITY"????
The problem is two members of the council that are trying to push through changes that benefit their wards cause they don't care what the changes will do the city. They are shortsighted. The moratorium is intended to protect the city and when a certain councilman got called on his poor choices he is trying to blame it on the City Attorney's office.