08-13-01 Council Meeting Minutes

Home Browse Search

REGULAR MEETING AUGUST 13, 2001 professional advice from its attorney. He noted that the bill being considered at this time is the bill submitted this evening and not the one discussed at the Committee meeting this afternoon so those individuals who referred to a prohibition on selling for above face value are referring to something that is not in the proposed legislation. Attorney Cekanski- Farrand advised that for the record she would like to add the letters and correspondence received by Councilmember King as part of the record. With regard to Mr. Donnelly's concern with regard to civil forfeiture, it is acceptable and constitutional to retain tickets at such time when an officer believes there is a violation for purposes of evidence only. With regard to some of the other constitutional concerns, this afternoon at the j oint committee meeting there were not less than seven (7) or eight (8) attorneys and the fact that the majority of those individuals that voiced concern earlier this afternoon are not here this evening, speaks to the fact that the amended bill does address some of those concerns that were raised which were primarily raised with regard to the anti - scalping provisions. With regard to the police powers and Home Rule powers that this Council is charged with these are the appropriate regulatory powers which a second class City has. The record speaks well with regard to the committee record as well as the informational meetings that were held prior to this with regard to the quality of life issues that have been raised. Council President Pfeifer stated that the main job of the Council is their responsibility as legislators to have ordinances on the books as tools for various departments to carry out their work. This ordinance affects people who live in neighborhoods who have people performing inappropriate behavior which is compromising their quality of life. The people in the neighborhoods have put up with this behavior for a long time and it is long enough. She noted that this Council is not doing this for Notre Dame and not just for sporting events but for entertainment entities throughout the City. Councilmember Varner stated that a number of questions have been raised with regard to what "in the vicinity" means. Section 13 -35 (b) of the bill refers to increased noise in the neighborhood. He stated that he does not think that the increased noise that occurs in neighborhoods is caused by scalpers but by the traffic that is already there. He further stated that damage to private property is a concern and all should be done to prevent that type of thing in all neighborhoods. Councilmember Varner recommended that this bill, as amended, be continued for two (2) weeks. He noted that he was under the impression that the seizure of tickets was going to be removed from the amended version. He inquired whether or not one (1) ticket would be adequate to be confiscated as evidence if a person receives a citation rather than all the tickets the person is trying to sell and stated. He stated that that is what needs to be addressed. Councilmember Varner stated that he wants this ordinance to provide some protection for people in the neighborhood who do find themselves subject to some extreme traffic and what goes on during those times but does not want to restrict the rights of others who do have the right to buy and sell tickets. The term "in the vicinity" needs to be redefined if in fact there will be a place where it is permissible as sometimes it is as important to say where you can do something than where you cannot. Therefore, Councilmember Varner made a motion to continue this bill for at least two (2) weeks so it can be reviewed, and for the public to review, to determine if it says what they really think it does. He supports the notion to make the event as less intrusive to the neighborhood as can be. Councilmember Ujdak noted that there is a motion on the floor to continue this bill until August 27, 2001. Councilmember Aranowski stated that he agrees with Councilmember Varner and seconded the motion. Councilmember Coleman asked Council Attorney Cekanski- Farrand if the matter of the University of Notre Dame not being within the City limits was addressed since he was unable to attend the committee meeting this afternoon. Attorney Cekanski - Farrand stated that the definitions have to be read in their totality because of place of public entertainment. They are taking fifty (50) feet from the edge of that property line and that is onto City property. She noted that many examples were given such as the Palais Royale and Coveleski Stadium. However, the specific question raised by Mr. Donnelly was not raised at committee level. However, she does not see it as a serious legal flaw with regard to the language that is in the ordinance as proposed.