Why do I get the feeling that the supporters of the economic agreement just passed at council are reading articles like the one below quite carefully? I have the answer. I believe that as soon as the referendum petitions are certified, one of the supporters will come up with some cock and bull reason to make a motion to repeal the ordinance. Then, based on court precedent mentioned below, they will simply motion to vote it back in at the next meeting.
Do I put it past them to make such a reckless move? No because they believe they are bulletproof. Can they suffer through the bad press that will result? Of course. If they can insult the opposition by calling them a coffee boy, a retired delivery boy and a computer geek and then refuse to apologize when asked to by residents, they don?’t lose sleep over bad press. If they curse each other out on smoke breaks in front of city hall in front of the press instead of running a meeting, they don't lose sleep over bad press.
I hope that the petition carrier that came to my door with all the passion she demonstrated reads this site and if council screws with the referendum effort, she applies the same passion and effort to a recall on the majority of council and their beloved mayor.
CW wins lawsuit
By Linda Dillman
Staff Writer
The Franklin County Common Pleas court has ruled in favor of the village of Canal Winchester involving a lawsuit brought against the village by resident Jeff Bond alleging he was deprived of his right to pursue referendum action.
The court also ruled Bond?’s legal challenge was a frivolous lawsuit.
Bond opposed the approval of rezoning a Gender Road property from single family to planned residential development by Canal Winchester Village Council in November 2005. Bond circulated and filed a referendum petition for the November 2006 general election to block the legislation, but since the legal action put the sale of the property into limbo, owners Lyle and Judy Fox asked the council on Feb. 28 to repeal the rezoning ordinance.
When the council voted to repeal the rezoning of the 7.5-acre property, it rendered the referendum moot and off the ballot. In May 2006, the property was back up for rezoning and the request was eventually approved. Bond then filed a complaint for injunctive relief with the Franklin County Common Pleas Court citing wrongful nullification of the petition.
Bond, who acted as his own legal counsel, alleged the village negligently and deliberately circumvented his right to a referendum and silenced the ability of electors to speak on an election issue. Bond?’s complaint stated he ?“has a substantial likelihood of success on the merits of his claims against defendants?” and asked the court to ?“Temporarily, preliminarily and permanently enjoin defendants from advancing the rezoning of the Lyle and Judy Fox property on Gender Road until this case is resolved.?”
A Jan. 16 press release issued by the village stated the court found that, because the action taken by council to return the property back to the original zoning would have been the same result had the referendum passed, there was no point challenging the action of council. The action nullified the referendum.
The court ruled Canal Winchester was also free to seek legal fees and damages suffered in the effort to defend itself. A decision on the order of award is expected within the next few weeks.
?“It took a great degree of organizational courage for our council to empower the property owner with their right to develop the property in accordance with a proper land use policy,?” said Mayor Jeff Miller. ?“Our village has a responsibility to defend itself against hostile actions and we are pleased that the Common Pleas Court agreed.?”
