I forget the vote I read about, something preliminary. The article I read said it wasn't the final vote, but something preliminary at which the result was the same: 6-1. That's when the recall talk should have started. Maybe if it had, this result wouldn't have happened.
Yeah, the article that's been posted, and most of them in the last few days, dealt with the time frame of the second "reading" of the ordinance, which is where the ordinance is read and citizen commentary is accepted. The first reading, no one knew about it, obviously, so there wasn't much in the way of comments. That video was from the second reading. The third and final reading, there were many more people in attendance, where I think about 12 citizens voiced dissent and one voiced approval. Then the City Council promptly passed it with the same 6-1 vote that the previous two readings had.
What's most disturbing is where the city council members are leaving the Constitutionality of the measure up to a higher court in pursuit of even more government power.
"I believe it is our right to protect the citizens the best we can," said Runchey (City Council member),
"and that's one of the roles of government."
But a citizen objected,
"Giving up our rights for your idea of what's best protecting us is unconstitutional."
"That is something that will be decided by a higher authority than you or I," Runchey concluded.
Unbelievable. It's insane.
I honestly don't know what the recall procedures are for Cedar Falls, or what criteria can be used to initiate one. Usually a recall petition (or recall election) requires just a bunch of signatures within a certain time frame to get one going. A small handful of states require some sort of misconduct or malfeasance to be identified by the petitioners. I know Georgia and Kansas are two of those, but I think only about 5 or 6 states require it. Minnesota, too, I think. I don't think Iowa is one of them.
I think they'll go the court route first, but that may be a mistake, considering the Illinois Supreme Court just ruled that police officers can illegally enter your home and you are not allowed to offer resistance, and that on the heels of the US Supreme Court's 8-1 ruling that police can enter a home without a warrant if they smell what they believe is marijuana, knock and identify themselves, and then hear evidence – or at least what they think is evidence – being destroyed. Where one unfortunately timed flush could have the police surrounding your bathroom.
They're better off with a recall, or in a small college town like that, just put community pressure on the individual Council members to change the ordinance.
I have no idea what the penalty for non-compliance is. I can't find the actual ordinance online anywhere. I just a little while ago read that it also includes businesses with sprinkler systems, too. So it's pretty much all commercial property.
And I wonder just how many geldings there are saying, "They just want to keep us safe! C'mon, we have to obey the law..."
I can actually understand the thinking behind it, in certain situations. Like large apartment complexes where the the landlords have the keys anyway, and most rental agreements state the landlord or his agent (including the fire department) can enter the apartment in an emergency, and maybe at college dorms. But that's about it. A hardware store? Office supply? An insurance office? No way.
Molasses and feathers, that's the proper response, in addition to six recalls.
Would certainly make the point. But the way things are today, that could get the entire town 30-to-life for
assaulting an elected official with a sticky substance. <snort>
I had no problem making access as a fire fighter when I needed too. No problem as all. Another "feel good bill" designed to remove freedom and assert government control over the people by making it a "safety issue" Bull feathers.