OCR Text |
Show NOW WHAT WAS THE QUESTION? Well it finally arrived the Mayor's long awaited opinion from the Attorney General on the legality of the Subdivision ordinance passed this past summer by the Milford City Council. The Mayor, obviously feeling a feather in his cap read the letter from the Attorney General, which in sum and substance said that the the Ordinance No. 19, in its present state was unconstitutional, and went on to suggest sug-gest revisions, which would make it valid. This action by the Mayor, which for the minute has been upheld by Attorney General Romney, is a low blow to a council which has worked hard to help the community commun-ity progress, and in the most needed area of all, housdng. IBut it is not the third strike, and an Attorney General's opinion is just that an opinion, untested in court, it is worth little more than yours or mine. The Mayor hung on tightly to the letter, and when requested by Councilman Swain, to produce the letter to the Attorney General, agreed that this would be done, but did not make it available at that time. This of course is the crux of the whole matter because be-cause it is easy to get the answers you want if you ask the right questions. Though the Council was aware of the threatened action for several months, they were never presented with a copy of the letter sent to the Attorney General, nor did the Attorney General himself ever bother to contact the council for information or background leading lead-ing to the the drawing and passing of such ordinance. This means that the Attorney General must have based his opinion purely on the basis of the Mayor's instigated in-stigated letter, which may not have told the whole story. Did it tell how the sewer and water fees were- originally origin-ally established? That the City laid the lines, including purchase of materials and furnishing labor. And that the cost of the materials (not the labor) was divided by the number of property owners, and they were assessed a flat fee to pay for it. Regardless of the size of the lot. (A person with za 25 ft. lot pays the same as one with 150 ft. Now this is discrimination). Where is the discrimination here when the subdivider accordng to Ordinance No. 19 must furnish all materials and labor, surveying and including in-cluding fire plugs and manholes, to the city's specifications? specifica-tions? Does not the city as a whole benefit more from an organized development, where a full block or more of jlines are laid, connected and inspected, where competent personnel are in charge, rather than a piece meal development develop-ment as Milford has been accustomed to in the past, where private lines may run for as much as a block, sometimes side by side with their neighbor's, two or three to an alley? Is there discrimination against the property owner who wishes to build his home a block away from existing lines? Does he have to install adequate lines to take care of his neighbor, who might someday wish to hook on to his line? Does he have to install fireplugs, and manholes, man-holes, and sewer cleanouts? Nope! This falls to the city, shortly after he moves in and begins to make demands. Bfut this was required of the subdivider, and rightfully so. D oes this same builder, have to grade and oil the street in front of his new home? Nope! But his wife will complain to city hall about the dust on her fine china, until un-til they do The subdivider is required to do this! No, we don't believe it is so important the answer the Mayor received from the Attorney General, but rather, what was the question asked of him? Did he have adequate ade-quate background to work from? What was the intent of the council at the time the sewer and water hookup fee was instigated? Is it the purpose of the mayor and council to impede or to encourage the growth of the community? The Mayor may have his answer from the Attorney General, but it still leaves a lot of questions unanswered. As we stated previously, an Attorney General Opinion, is still just one man's opinion it takes a court test to |