“Speaking truth to power.”
It’s a phrase that originated in the 1950s from a Quaker pamphlet promoting pacifism in the belief that love can overcome hatred.
It has come to mean “speaking out to those in authority” and is now used in politics and human rights activism.
At last Thursday’s East Ridge City Council meeting, the council got a small dose of “speaking truth to power” from several constituents.
The council was criticized for its handling of the “extended stay” issue. The board was to consider on first reading an ordinance that was – among other things – going to set time limits on guest stays at the city’s motels. In its final form, it was largely drafted by representatives of the hotel/motel industry and staff from our City Attorney’s office.
Laura Seneker, Matthew DeGlopper (a candidate for City Council), and this writer (speaking as a citizen) had some strong opinions about the ineffectiveness of the ordinance and how it was crafted. Needless to say, some council members didn’t want to hear the critics.
A central argument made against its passage was that it was “gutted” and watered down by the “special interests” (a dirty word in the eyes of some) and really did nothing to address the problem that a handful of disreputable businesses are creating for the 20,000 law-abiding folk of this city … mainly that these motels are a haven for criminal activity.
Seneker asked about the timetable of how this legislation came about. She wanted to know when the hotel/motel people were asked to review the thing. In fact, city fathers have been wrestling with this issue for more than a year. During one workshop in the spring, City Attorney Hal North said that it might be a good idea to get input from the businesses this ordinance would be regulating.
It’s my understanding that this initial invitation did nothing in prompting the hotel/motel folks – in particular representatives from the problem properties – to come to the table. I believe the folks from the hotel/motel industry didn’t show up until a council meeting in June, in which some guys in suits from the flagship businesses expressed displeasure in having such regulations. They voiced concerns that it might adversely affect their financing from banks and could jeopardize their franchise agreements.
The owners of the problem properties were nowhere to be found at this meeting.
The guys in the suits speaking about financing and franchises, construction worker guests and microwave ovens and kitchenettes in rooms, are not the problem. They operate legitimate businesses that provide a great service to this community and add to the quality of life in East Ridge.
The guys who weren’t there … the people who check in an intoxicated Mr. and Mrs. Smith at 2 a.m. with no luggage and the law gets called several hours later when Mrs. Smith has decamped with her “husband’s” wallet and dope – that’s the problem.
But our council can’t see the forest for the trees. They believed by passing some multi-page ordinance that treats all the motels (the good, the bad, the real ugly) the same is going to move this city forward and get rid of the bad actors.
I think they are wrong.
DeGlopper suggested exempting the flagship motels – the ones with three-star ratings – from this ordinance. These places are not the problem and the rules shouldn’t apply to them. Other cities across the country have dealt with problem motel properties in a similar way.
However, there was hue and cry from the council, the people in power. The city can’t possibly do that, because according to the City Attorney’s office, the city could invite a lawsuit. We must listen to our lawyers, Vice Mayor Marc Gravitt said.
DeGlopper offered that the flagship hotels would not file a suit. They would not have “standing,” a legal term pertaining to whether a prospective plaintiff can show that some personal legal interest has been invaded by the defendant.
A shouting match ensued between Gravitt and DeGlopper with Gravitt asking “are you an attorney? are you and attorney?”
Of course, the appropriate answer would have been, “No, but I stayed at a Holiday Inn Express last night.”
DeGlopper, of course, is not an attorney. DeGlopper wanted Gravitt to confer with Alex McVeigh – a real attorney sitting in for City Attorney Hal North – and ask him if the flagship motels would or would not have “standing to sue” if this legislation passed.
Gravitt never asked McVeigh that question. I contend that if he did ask McVeigh, McVeigh’s answer may not have been the one Gravitt wanted to hear.
It seems to me the city fathers only ask our attorneys questions when it moves the city fathers’ position forward.
When the council was grappling – for more than two years – with a new wrecker and towing ordinance, our City Attorney cautioned the council repeatedly that it could not limit the number of towing companies on the coveted district wrecker rotation without it relating in some way to “public safety.” The state Supreme Court had already handed down a ruling that municipalities can’t limit the number of wreckers.
Did our city fathers really care about that piece of legal advice? No. We did it any way.
Mark Mamantov, the legal counsel for the Industrial Development Board, was adamant in his advice about two issues in this Border Region incentives deal. One: the last million dollars in incentives from the city to the developers would come from something called a “bridge loan,” not cash. Two: Do not give the developers the state incremental tax dollars on any future developments in which they have a 51 percent ownership.
Did our city fathers listen to legal advice on those issues? No.
But in this case with extended stay motel regulations, the council must, must heed advice from legal counsel.
Give me a break.
Here’s my advice: Exempt the flagship motels from the ordinance. They are not the problem. And, roll the dice on the prospect of owners of sketchy motels potentially suing the city for running them out of business.
As a resident of East Ridge, I would not have any complaints about the city using my tax dollars to pay for attorneys to argue OUR side in court before a judge.
