Convenience Store Owners expressing concern over Special Use Permit process…
To read the full chapter which is 721 in the Charter, the changes to the ordinance were passed on 12-11-07 but as the time approaches for the convenience store owners to go through the application process and the realization of what will be entailed in meeting what is listed as required, concerns that were addressed at that time are becoming even more of an issue for some of them. I’ve heard that a group of them have retained a lawyer.
Some of the concerns are related to what has been expressed to be an overly cumbersome application process that involves several steps of documentation required by the convenience store owner, including having the stipulation that, “No license shall be granted, or renewed for any premises or person on which taxes; assessments or other financial claims of the City are delinquent or unpaid.” A valid question has been raised as to how many other businesses in Toledo would be “shut down” for owing taxes or assessments that are just unpaid and not even to the point of being delinquent. We know there are quite a few businesses out there that were delinquent in their taxes since during the recent tax amnesty program $600,000 was paid from businesses.
Then there are other concerns such as under:
721.07 Right to Appeal; Procedure and Board
After hearing, the Appeal Board may sustain, modify or reverse the decision of the Director of Finance and in every case the decision of the Board shall be final.
This seems to suggest that they have no other legal option and limits their due process. There have been previous situations where a convenience store owner has gone to court over the denial of a special use permit.
721.15. Business license management responsibilities
(4) It shall be the responsibility of the licensee to provide adequate security to prevent criminal activity, loitering, lurking and disorderly conduct on the business premises, including parking areas.
The concern here is it appears this could require that security people would have to be hired.
(5) A license shall be required to pay all delinquent court judgments for violations of the Toledo Municipal Code including fines and costs.
Again relates to concern about equal enforcement for other businesses.
(7) Vending and other unattended coin operated machines shall be in plain view of employees and shall not be operable during hours the business is not open to the public and in operation.
No pop machines outside and no condom or even feminine products would be able to be sold in restrooms given this stipulation.
The list of the concerns could continue there are those related to the video surveillance, some constitutional issues and a few others, but I thought I would post at least a starting point for purposes of discussion. I know many people support the idea of being able to deal with problem convenience stores at a local level better than what we have had in the past as far as permits. Do you think this has gone too far? Or do you think it’s fine as is?
The store owners should post signs saying they’re late in paying their taxes so thugs know it’s pointless to hold ‘em up.
April 3rd, 2008 at 12:15 pm“Do you think this has gone too far?”
Yes, I do. And so does Sue Frederick, at least DID for a moment. Here’s the conversation I had with her on “Call City Hall Day” right before Christmas. I think it bears repeating because even if the city admits to something being wrong or unfair they are incapable of making corrections:
So here’s what happened when I called city hall that lasted exactly 4m12s. First, they gave me the usual run around about taking my name and number and told me they will have someone call me from the mayor’s office to answer my question.
I said, it’s Christmas time. I’m busy, everyone else is busy. Besides, today is call city hall day and I want my question answered today.
The woman I first spoke to was obviously taken aback and politely asked me if I’d mind holding. I was put on hold and then got Sue Frederick. I read 721.11 (2) to her three times. Here were my questions and (paraphrasing) her answers:
1. Does the mayor intend to veto this? If not, why not? She said she didn’t know what the mayor intends to do.
2. Is this legislation fair? She said yes.
3. Have you read it? She said, “no, but I’m familiar with it.”
4. If you haven’t read it, then may I read you a paragraph? Answer, yes.
5. How is that a fair law? Answer, it sounds like it is not.
6. So don’t you think that someone [hint, hint] should point this out to the mayor? She said, yes that she’d look at it and let the mayor know.
April 3rd, 2008 at 12:25 pmThis is from “The Most Business-Friendly City”.
Goes to show what all these fake awards are about.
Look to the day when Finkbeiner is no longer in charge of this city.
April 3rd, 2008 at 12:25 pmI don’t believe this legislation came from the Mayor, it was Rob Ludeman who presented I do believe and there were some that called for the Mayor to veto it, which would suggest the legislation did not come from the Administration.
Yet, if the votes held there would have been enough to over-ride a veto,
April 3rd, 2008 at 12:42 pm10-2,9 to 2 Shultz and Birmingham voting no, Craig was absent.Richard Nixon said it the best – “It’s the man at the top”.
History will not specify who did what during these years that we let ourselves be bamboozled by Finkbeiner. The mayor sets the tone.
All these bone-headed decisions will be the legacy of one Carleton S. Finkbeiner.
April 3rd, 2008 at 1:02 pmel Mahico, what part do you NOT understand of what Lisa is saying in regards to this legislation: “I don’t believe this legislation came from the Mayor, it was Rob Ludeman who presented I do believe and there were some that called for the Mayor to veto it, which would suggest the legislation did not come from the Administration.”
As I do recall this legislation was created by the council and voted by the council, so where is the logic of you attacking the mayor when he had nothing to do with it to begin with?
Your diatribe against the mayor is a bit old nowadays.
April 3rd, 2008 at 1:14 pmThings are not always as they appear in politics, son.
A word to the wise – Don’t take anything at face value. Especially around Finkbeiner. He is a master at deception.
I was there the day Ludeman threw his support behind Finkbeiner in September 2005 at a press conference in District 2. You would have thought they were best buddies. And since they are both Republican, deep down they have a lot of similar philosophies and beliefs.
(did anyone miss what a great guy ‘Democrat’ Finkbeiner said Republican John McCain is ? Does anyone remember Finkbeiner as a Republican first, trying to unseat Democrat Lud Ashley for a Congressional seat ?)
That was back in the 70’s, son – before your time.
Finkbeiner is a Republican in Democrat clothing.
You just have not had the same exposure to and experiences with Finkbeiner as I have.
Finkbeiner is a true snake in the grass.
I am sorry that you are still under his spell.
P.S. If my “diatribe” is too much for you, try this technique… The names of the authors of a comment are always first. When you see ‘el Mahico’ at the beginning of a comment, just don’t read it.
That should solve your problem. And you can go on in bliss, still believing that “Carty gets RESULTS”.
April 3rd, 2008 at 2:10 pm“I’ve heard that a group of them have retained a lawyer.”
Word on the street is, three of the finest legal minds in Toledo are on the case…
April 3rd, 2008 at 7:17 pmKaryn McConnell-Handcock?
sweet!
April 3rd, 2008 at 7:47 pmDon, given your comment? It’s going to be veryyyyy interesting.
April 3rd, 2008 at 7:50 pmWasn’t the legislation a reaction to citizen comments about crime and so on around the stores.
So the council does what people want, and now the businesses are complaining.
Go figure.
April 3rd, 2008 at 8:01 pmThat’s the purpose of the discussion NC, did the legislation go too far and is it creating an undue problem for the 270 convenience stores in the Toledo area or is it something that is felt to be acceptable.
There has to be a balance between neighborhoods and business, and some feel this particular legislation is not balanced. Some do.
April 3rd, 2008 at 8:15 pm“That’s the purpose of the discussion NC,…”
Yup, well aware of that fact.
The outcome could have been seen when people wanted to restrict what businesses could or could not do, and there is no legislation that will apply equally to all concerns.
“There has to be a balance between neighborhoods and business, and some feel this particular legislation is not balanced. Some do.”
Yup and some on both sides will not agree, at all.
And Council will review and make a stand or try and flip the legislation to accommodate the wants and desires of businesses and will the residents complain and the whole cycle starts again.
Business friendly city?
April 3rd, 2008 at 8:24 pmI’m not sure if Council will review it, if the group of owners gets a restraining order then they would probably have to but if it’s not granted then they’d have to take other steps.
If it ends up being declared unconstitutional that’s a whole different issue, so at this point it depends on what happens in the courts.
April 3rd, 2008 at 8:36 pmHow will they ever figure out where the fire started in 1 Gov. with so much smoke and steam escaping on the top two floors??..hehehehe
April 3rd, 2008 at 10:30 pm