Home > Flagstaff Liberty Alliance, Nanny State, New Media, Police State > PMO Review Group Meeting Packed With Concerned Flag Residents

PMO Review Group Meeting Packed With Concerned Flag Residents

By Elisha Dorfsmith

Over forty concerned members of the public attended an unadvertised Property Maintenance Review Group meeting last night to learn more about how it would affect them.  Zoning Code Administrator Roger Eastman said that no open meeting law applies to a group like the PMO Review Group and there was no need for them to announce it publicly.

The Review Group went over the proposed PMO section by section and some of the members said they had major concerns that the PMO was going beyond health and safety.  One member asked if pine needles in gutters would be a problem. Another was concerned that the term “untended growth and vegetation” would impact their wildflower garden. Several members agreed that the ordinance needs checks and balances to make sure the PMO does not go too far.

Eastman reiterated his confidence that the proposed document reflects the Council’s wishes. He said that the PMO is vague for a reason and was never meant to be a black and white code.  He is convinced that City staff will always use their best judgement when enforcing the law.

“It comes down to reasonableness.” He said.

The meeting ended before the group got to the Administration and Enforcement aspect of the PMO. They will be scheduling another “private” meeting for next week.

A public meeting on the PMO is scheduled for Thursday April 5 at 5:00 pm in the Council Chambers.  Please attend this meeting and voice your opinion, either verbally or on a comment card. The City needs to hear from as many concerned residents as possible.

You can read the current version of the proposed PMO HERE.

Concerned residents pack the Staff Conference Room at City Hall.

Zoning Code Administrator Roger Eastman openly admitted that the small staff conference room was filled beyond capacity and was breaking fire codes.

flagstafflibertyalliance.com

Advertisements
  1. March 23, 2012 at 12:15 pm

    I don’t think this PMO is needed at all. It appears that the problems are in South Side and Sunnyside. Those two neighborhoods should work out their own problems. There is already too much government involvement in our personal lives. If it really involves the health or safety of others (not the person living on their own property) then OK, but limit it only to those specifics. The PMO as written is too broad and too general. Roger Eastman can talk about intent all he wants, but it’s what the words say that counts!

  2. SlimStrontem
    March 23, 2012 at 4:13 pm

    “Reasonable” Is:
    Never signing a blank check
    Never signing a vague contract
    or Otherwise Granting Vague and Undefined Obligations, Authorities, and Powers.

    Doing any of the above is almost always Unreasonable, and might be described by many other less pleasant descriptive terms.

    No no no no no no no no no no no no no no no no no no no no.

  3. SlimStrontem
    March 23, 2012 at 6:01 pm

    Learn:

    Short PDF containing source links:
    http://api.ning.com/files/pc*j-OzalXgOQTs9617hxF4IbUpNJGT2m6OTpp3BQxk75VsymO*0ZSC4XssdRyFkUwVHpsLmzH-9d0*yPJdHhkIS*1XFc5PM/SustainableDevelopment1.pdf

    Video, 14 minutes, “for Public Officials”. Quite good.


    Tell me what other web pages should bear this info, and I will find them.
    Thanks.

  4. SlimStrontem
    March 23, 2012 at 6:03 pm

    hmmm. Tried posting info links twice. You got ’em?
    One link had a really long address… I don’t know if it got dropped by the system or what…

    • March 23, 2012 at 7:31 pm

      WordPress tends to flag posts with links and send them to the spam box. Just approved it for you.

  5. Leora Harsh
    March 24, 2012 at 5:24 am

    Thank you all for being at that meeting…we, in sunnyside, have worked for a PMO for 10+ years and each time we have brought to the city what we (minimally) wanted..(ie..time limit on portapottites in the yards for years ..and they were full…defecating and urinating in the alleys.etc..all ordinances that are on the books ..BUT NOT ENFORCED..”we have few officers to do that”.To quote one of the officers..”just be a good neighbor and handle it”.. The city over 10 years have conveniently “lost” the 2-3 PMO’s that were hand delivered that were written and comprising many hours of work.Since the above reader thinks this is a Sunnyside and southside problem, perhaps it is time for districting.With that in mind, Please sign up for the Charter review group. The Charter is old and needs review…perhaps with that review, it will be seen how and that Flagstaff needs to look at districting . One of the reasons Sunnyside is the way it is…the city took all monies promised to Sunnyside and diverted them first to the library area down town then to the auto mall..etc. that is just a start.
    districting

  6. C Daschete
    March 24, 2012 at 8:20 am

    “PMO is vague for a reason ” here come the yard police

  7. SlimStrontem
    March 26, 2012 at 1:35 am

    Leora,
    From what you say, you should understand as much as anyone that, the more power and money the city gets, the more political games and abuses will occur.

    They have absolutely no sense of decency or propriety. I will not, here, bore you with the list of evidences. Well, maybe one or two: The recent “emergency” session. The recent attempt to give sales tax money to an existing auto-dealer for their increased profits. This is Chicago politics. It is now nationwide. A decent politician is a rarity… Not that most are particularly rotten, but that Chicago rotten is now the norm.

    Only sociopaths conspire to call non-emergencies emergencies, and think nothing of it–Or idiots that can’t tie their own shoes. This is simply true. One or the other. If they can tie their shoes, they are sociopaths.

    I’m tellin’ ya. There is no more room for complacency. Just look around you. They are too busy plotting their next moves and buying favors to get your area’s porta-potties cleaned.

  8. SlimStrontem
    March 26, 2012 at 12:42 pm

    A practical application of property codes:

  9. March 28, 2012 at 11:50 am

    Dear Mr. Eastman,

    As per my Rights as a Citizen of Flagstaff, Arizona, I am formally requesting that I be notified of the next time, date and place of the Proposed PMO Review Group Meeting and any subsequent meetings that may come about.

    Since you will be making recommendations that will effect my Civil and Constitutional Rights as a Citizen of Flagstaff, I feel very strongly that I need to be present to see what revisions and direction this Proposed PMO will take.

    Since there was also a concern about making sure the Fire Safety/Occupation Codes are observed, I am hereby informing you in writing that I personally know of at least 55 (fifty-five) other, very concerned Citizens that plan on being in attendance to listen, take notes and record the meeting(s).

    Arizona Open Meeting Law A.R.S. 38-431
    I’m fairly sure I do not need to quote my rights to you, but for the public that will be reading this also,
    I include the link so they may read the Law and know their Rights for themselves.
    http://www.azleg.gov/ombudsman/Open%20Meeting%20Law%20101.pdf

    Yes, I am sending a copy of this letter to the Daily Sun and a few others. As well as posting it on my facebook page for the public to view, as evidence that I have made a formal request to you in writing. There are also a few Political Blogs that the Citizens of Flagstaff subscribe to that I will be sharing a copy of this with.

    With that in mind, there could easily be another crowd show up to accompany the 55 I know of.
    Respectfully Sir, I ask that you take these possible numbers of attendance into consideration when choosing the venue for this Proposed PMO Review Group Meeting.

    If I have misunderstood the Law, I would appreciate if it could be pointed out with a thorough explanation.

    Most Sincerely,

    Mrs. Donna L. Creamer
    Sunnyside
    Flagstaff, Arizona

    I received a phone call from Mr. Eastman at 12:05 pm Monday in response to this letter.

    In a nutshell he said that he would prefer that the public NOT attend the PMO Review Group Meetings and that they were not expecting the public to show up in the first place.
    I said I thought that was rather short sighted considering how controversial it is to the citizens of Flagstaff…which by the way Mr. Eastman is NOT a resident of Flagstaff.

    He said that the Arizona Open Open Meeting Laws do NOT apply to the Review group and I do NOT have the right to be present.
    I asked him what A.R.S. Law he was quoting and he said he did not know the Code.
    I said “You sure are quick to quote a Law you cannot site.” Then I said that IF he could provide me with the law the says I do not have the right to be at a meeting that is to affect what Civil and Constitutional Rights of mine and the rest of this community have, that I will be at those meetings.

    He said that is not the way he wants it and that if it has to be that way then he will put up with the public being present.
    I asked him again to PLEASE provide me with the A.R.S. Laws in writing so that I could see for myself.
    He then said that he had no intention of putting anything in writing to me and that telling me on the phone that I do not have the right to be there is good enough for him.

    Rather leaves us with the He Said/She Said “no proof” way out for Mr. Eastman.

    So I got a bit hot and said “Listen buddy, until I see for a fact that I do not have the right to be at those meetings, consider me there, in your face!”
    He also said that the next meeting has NOT been scheduled and that it will most likely be after the 04-05-2012 05:00 pm Public Meeting in the City Council Chambers.
    I asked if he thought that was very reasonable since the review group did not finish going over the PMO yet and the Council would be wanting a complete review. He said no they are not expecting that and it can wait.

    Hmm, anyone want to guess what evening they will schedule this week?
    There is a Candidate Forum on Thursday March 29th at 05:30 pm at the Radisson…let’s hope they do NOT choose that one evening when so many that I know of would like to be at both places.

    Since Roger Eastman says that he would prefer the public NOT be present and that the Arizona Open Meeting Laws to NOT give us the right to be there, why does he not enforce it?

    Yes, time will tell if he is being honest. My husband at least heard my end of the conversation and the things I repeated to Mr Eastman to make sure I had heard HIM correctly.

    I told him I will expect to be notified of the meeting time and he said he had no obligation to me but that the public in general would be told.
    We shall see…..

  10. SlimStrontem
    April 3, 2012 at 5:29 am

    Emails sent to the counsel which regard agenda items are REQUIRED to be considered
    AND placed into record.
    So, I suggest re-sending any emails before upcoming council meetings with the respective agenda item numbers on them, so that they cannot be mistaken or missed.

  1. August 6, 2013 at 6:41 pm

Leave a Reply

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

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com 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 )

Google+ photo

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

Connecting to %s

%d bloggers like this: