WHAT SHOULD I BE DOING INSTEAD OF THIS?
 
March 20th, 2013 By German Lopez | News | Posted In: Parking, News, Budget

Judge Extends Parking Plan Restraining Order

City says it's reaching "pressure point" for budget cuts

downtown groceryRendition of proposed downtown grocery store and luxury apartment tower. - Image: Provided

Hamilton County Judge Robert Winkler announced today that he will be extending the restraining order on the city's parking plan until April 3, potentially delaying any ruling on the city's plan to lease its parking assets to the Port of Greater Cincinnati Development Authority for another two weeks.

Winkler's office told CityBeat that the judge has been focusing on a murder case, and the delay will give him more time to review the details of the parking plan's case before giving a ruling. The delay does not necessarily mean a ruling is delayed until April 3, and it's possible Winkler could rule within the next two weeks, according to his office.

Meg Olberding, city spokesperson, says the city is approaching a "pressure point" with the latest delay.

"We respect the court's right to do that (the extension), and know that every day that we cannot make the parking deal happen is a day that we are closer to having to lay people off," she says.

Olberding says the city is so far unsure what the exact effect of the delay will be. The city has repeatedly warned that extending the legal conflict for too long will force the city to make cuts to balance the budget for fiscal year 2014, which begins July 1.

City Council passed the parking plan in a 5-4 vote on March 6, but the plan was almost immediately held up by a temporary restraining order from Winkler after he received a lawsuit from Curt Hartman, an attorney who represents the Coalition Opposed to Additional Spending and Taxes (COAST), on behalf of local activists who oppose the plan and argue it should be subject to referendum.

The legal dispute is centered around City Council's use of emergency clauses, which remove a 30-day waiting period on approved legislation, and the city claims they also remove the possibility of referendum.

In a hearing presided by Winkler on March 15, Hartman argued the city charter's definition of emergency clauses is ambiguous, and legal precedent supports siding with voters' right to referendum when there is ambiguity.

Terry Nestor, who represented the city, said legal precedent requires the city to defer to state law as long as state law is not contradicted in the city charter.

Cincinnati's city charter does not specify whether emergency legislation is subject to referendum, but state law explicitly says it's not.

Opponents of the parking plan say they’re concerned the plan will give up too much control over the city's parking meters, which they say could lead to skyrocketing parking rates. 

The city says rates are set at 3 percent or inflation, but the rates can change with a unanimous vote from a special committee, approval from the city manager and a final nod from the Port Authority.

The special committee would comprise of four people appointed by the Port Authority and one appointed by the city manager.

The city is pursuing the parking plan to help balance the city's deficit for the next two fiscal years and enable economic development projects, including the construction of a downtown grocery store ("Parking Stimulus," issue of Feb. 27).

 
 
03.21.2013 at 08:34 Reply

In the meantime, "Smitherdoodle" and his COAST allies have collected under half the signatures needed to put the issue on the ballot and none, as yet, have been verified.  Seems to me the judge, can't walk and chew gum at the same time.  Look at the City Ordinances and get on with it.  The "emergency clause" has been used time and time again without objections until  COAST aided by mayoral candidate John Cranely, chimed in with their indea to take us back to 1960.

 

 
 
Close
Close
Close