Saturday, April 07, 2007

Brad annexed SIU and Sheila voted against it

I can't figure out how Sheila managed to vote against annexing SIU into Carbondale. It was great that Brad went over to campus and got Wendler and the gang to agree to do it. SIU and Carbondale are intertwined with police and fire protection already. It extends Carbondale's reach in zoning and future growth to the other side of SIU's lands. Gains the SIU sales tax revenue for Carbondale.

Does anyone know why Sheila voted against this? How could you justify her vote? Any thought that Sheila will be better then Brad at dealing with SIU has to be thrown out as part of the bargain, doesn't it?

This seems like another clear accomplishment for Brad and a strike against Sheila.

Isn't it great having Kyle and Jon Bean commenting using their real names? Of course, your comments are welcome.


Anonymous said...

Below is a link to the minutes of the Council meeting where this vote took place. Simon felt the Council had not had enough time to review the proposal. Her motion to delay the vote failed. She then voted no on the proposal. It is not clear that she was agianst the idea. Perhaps she would have voted for it given more time to review it; I wouldn't know.

There is an audio recording of the meeting. If may have more detail. I have not listened to it.

Peter in Carbondale said...

Are you telling us that Sheila hadn't done her work before the meeting and didn't know what was going on? It isn't like these things appear on the city council agenda without warning.

Kyle Raccio said...

She may have not had access to the actual proposal at the time until the meeting. She has criticized the Mayor many times, including with respect to the Indoor Air Act, about the time allotted and debate limitations.

It seems like this legislation was introduced and passed within the same day.

Anonymous said...

The link I gave seems to be incorrect. (A cut&paste error I guess.) Here is the correct link:

And a quote:

DISCUSSION: There was discussion on the process of expanding the City’s zoning
jurisdiction. Council members Simon, Jack and Fritzler expressed concern about how
little time Council members were given to review the agreement. Councilwoman Simon
and Councilman Fritzler also thought there should have been more time for public input.
S. Simon moved, J. Fritzler seconded, that the Council postpone consideration on this
item until the next Council meeting on January 17th. VOTE: Ayes: J. Fritzler, L. Jack
and S. Simon. Nays: C. Wissmann, S. Haynes, C. McDaniel and B. Cole. Motion
declared defeated.


I was not defending her or criticising her. Just showing the record so people can decide for themsleves. I will likely be voting for Cole. Apologies for the link errors. There is no recording of this meeting. But more can be found here:

Peter in Carbondale said...

Kyle is just making things up, but we will pull this out and give it a separate entry. Nothing better then talking about city council people who don't do their homework.

gadfly said...

What's the harm in waiting two weeks to make the decision, particularly if the community hasn't been given a chance to respond? There are downsides here, such as the increased cost of fire coverage for the university and, undoubtedly, issues impacting the city's insurance. All in all its the right thing to do, but what's wrong with a sober second thought?

Peter in Carbondale said...

I guess that you could delay things of this importance, but you only have so many hours of city council meetings a week. Holding public hearings on anti-smoking, that sounds good. To see if the public wants to discuss an agreement, pounded out with SIU? That isn't the way the real world works.

Should the city council have public hearings on everything? Filling potholes? Water purification? Parking tickets? How do you get enough hours to run things that way?

At the moment, things seem to be working pretty well. The anti-smoking stuff was passed after much public discussion and the annexation of SIU was passed without any real discussion. Sounds perfect based on what could be changed and their importance to the city.