City Council considering legislation to silence citizens comments on legislation before city government

To contact us Click HERE
The Atlanta CityCouncil is considering a piece of legislation—to be taken up by the Committeeon Council at its Feb. 18 meeting—that would severely limit the right ofcitizen taxpayers to comment on issues and items before City Council and itscommittees.

NPU-B. Chairperson Andrea Bennett

BuckheadView found outabout this legislation today (Sunday, Feb. 17) through an email fromNeighborhood Planning Unit B Chairperson Andrea Bennett, who addressed membersof City Council with the following letter on behalf of the NPU-B board.
The following is theunedited text of Ms. Bennett’s letter to members of City Council, objecting tothe legislation as being considered:
Dear Councilperson,

A week ago we received an email entitled "Legislation Amending'Remarks from Public' Code Section 2-136 of the Code of Ordinances for the Cityof Atlanta." We were advised that this will be taken up onFebruary 18, 2013.

I am writing as Chair of NPU-B to express our board's serious concerns aboutone aspect of the above legislation.

We fully appreciate the difficulty Council and its committees face in trying toexpeditiously handle the city's business while balancing that against the rightof citizens to speak out. Reasonable time limits on public comment at committeemeetings make sense, and we don't oppose that.
However, there are farmore realistic ways to accomplish that in lieu of imposing a complete ban onpublic comment. For example, the council could impose a monthly time limit of10 minutes by any one person.
Unfortunately, theproposed new ordinance proposes a sweeping ban on all public comment. Inparticular, subsection (f) states:

"(f) Comments shall not be permitted for items that have been referred toand heard before the Zoning Review Board or the subject of a public hearing fora land use change to the Comprehensive development Plan."

This is unreasonable and unnecessary. For the reasons set forth below, wedo not believe subsection (f) of this proposed legislation isappropriate.

(1) First of all, there is no indication that this is an ongoing issue or asignificant impediment to the conduct of the Council's business. In short, thisis a solution in search of a problem.

(2) The language is too broad. Under the proposed subsection (f), publiccomment will be denied in every situation if there has ever been any previoushearing where the public has technically had an opportunity to speak.

(3) The proposed change places an unreasonable and unfair standard of diligenceon the public. It is difficult for the public to track the time and order ofappearance for matters such as requests for land use changes at CDP meetings orhearings before the ZRB. Often these hearings are deferred or changed, and itis not practical for lay members of the community to attend with little or nonotice.

(4) The public is frequently unaware of staff recommendations prior to publichearings or committee meetings, and thus has no real opportunity to respond.

(5) The site plans, conditions and other elements in the applications underconsideration frequently change without the public being advised of same. Thusthere is no chance for comment or review.

(6) The legislation as currently drafted would unfairly favor applicants whoare represented by attorneys and other professional consultants who can closelymonitor the process and appear on short notice. This works to the prejudice ofneighborhood interests.

(7) The City's zoning and development process is complex and difficult tofollow for a lay person and for neighborhoods. No other jurisdiction in metroAtlanta limits public comment to this narrow stage of the process.

This was a major issue in connection with the Lindbergh shopping centerdevelopment last year, which hinged on a developer's request for a land usechange under the CDP. The quarterly hearing passed with little notice and wasfurther complicated by the representation made to the NPU that the developerwould be deferring its request In fact, the applicant showed up and pursued thechange, essentially bypassing the NPU and other public input.

Strong opposition was subsequently voiced when the city council's CDHRcommittee met to finalize the requested land use change. Had that not beenpermitted, the views of the city's residents and NPU's would have beeneliminated from the process.

In summary we strongly recommend that the proposed legislation, and inparticular subsection (f) thereof, not be passed. At minimum, we urge that thisitem be taken off the February 18 agenda of the Committee on Council so thatfurther discussion with the community and other possible solutions may beconsidered.

Thanks so much for your consideration of our views and your hard work on behalfof the City.

Andrea Bennett
Chair, NPU-B

BuckheadView editor
John Schaffner

Editor’s Comment: I fully support theposition stated by Andrea Bennett and totally rebuke the attempt by members ofCity Council to silence taxpaying citizens of the city of Atlanta fromcommenting on pending legislation and city issues. BuckheadView urges CityCouncil to withdraw this legislation—at least subsection (f)—immediately. Ifcouncil does not withdraw the legislation or change subsection (f),BuckheadView would favor citizens by the thousands storming City Hall inprotest and then seriously consider this City Council’s actions when theupcoming elections are held—throwing those who vote for this action out ofoffice.
John Schaffner, editor of BuckheadView