The Public Was Heard On Hovey

EDITORIAL - Saturday, November 22, 2008 - One needs to wonder why yet ANOTHER Public Hearing on the proposed Hovey Project's PILOT Ordinance is on Monday night's City Commission Agenda.

When Hovey originally proposed the project, it was suggested in October; presented to the Planning Commission in November; and a done deal by December. The only public hearing held on the matter didn't provide for the public to be heard. The agenda for that hearing supports my comments. I also posted my concerns on About_Ironwood following the meeting.

Prior to our last City Commission meeting, fifteen people spoke at a public hearing to "discuss and consider" the 2% PILOT (Payment In Lieu of Taxes) Hovey is requesting. Fourteen of those fifteen were OPPOSED to the PILOT. At least ten other individuals who attended the public hearing opposed the PILOT, but chose not to speak. As he begged for support of the PILOT, Mayor Bruce Noren sounded like Ben Stein in the movie Ferris Bueuller's Day Off, "Anyone? Anyone? Is anyone here to speak in FAVOR of the PILOT? Anyone? Bueller? Anyone?"

The purpose of a public hearing is to give the citizens of Ironwood a chance to get involved -- to voice their feelings on issues that matter to them. Two other public hearings preceded the last City Commission meeting -- the pigeon feeding ordinance and the outdoor furnace ordinance. People spoke up on both sides of those issues -- both for and against -- yet no other public hearing is being requested. Why is the Hovey Project's PILOT being given a "second" chance at a public hearing?

The public has been heard! On the outdoor furnace issue, there is a 50/50 split in opinions. Half of the people support the new ordinance and half do not. Should this issue be given a "second" chance before the Commission rules? The pigeon feeding issue was also met with a 50/50 split. Is anyone calling for a "second" public hearing on pigeon feeding? The public spoke out with an overwhelming opposition to the Hovey Project -- yet someone feels a need to hold a second public hearing!

How many people are going to be recruited to say "YES" at the NEXT public hearing? And if not enough YES people show up at the SECOND public hearing... are we going to schedule yet a THIRD? It's a good thing our courts don't work that way! Let's say the judge hates the accused, and the jury comes back with a NOT GUILTY decision -- can he simply retry the case? And when the second jury comes back with a NOT GUILTY decision -- does he repeat the process yet another time? And another -- until the judge finds a jury that will convict him?

Requesting a second public hearing on one of three issues -- the one that was substantially lopsided in its opposition -- is an abuse of power, and whoever is responsible for attempting to cheat the system should be held accountable. If the citizens seemed to be equally divided in their opinions -- like they were for the pigeon feeding ordinance and the outdoor furnace ordinance -- I could understand a need for further discussion and a second public hearing. But when ONLY one of twenty-five people FAVORED the Hovey PILOT, somethings very, very wrong!

Jim Albert