The City of Richardson's zoning ordinances allow for special use permits for smoking establishments after ensuring "safeguards as are necessary to protect adjoining property, as well as the public health, safety, morals and general welfare." A Richardson restaurant owner applied for a special use permit. His application was considered by the City Plan Commission, where it was approved 5-2 and will be considered next by the City Council. I want to examine those two negative votes more closely.
One "no" vote was by Gwen Walraven. She didn't explain her vote (again), so it's impossible for the restaurant owner (or anyone else) to divine what safeguards she believes weren't in place for her to approve this application. She offered no guidance to the same or another restaurant owner considering future applications. I consider this lack of explanation by a commission member for her "no" vote to be unacceptable.
The other "no" vote was by Sybil LaCour. There was no doubt what her objection was. "So for me personally, how it is for me, is I would, of course, I would never vote, you know, be in agreement for any smoking establishment for obvious reasons. I'm in health care, so I just would not."
Joe Costantino raised an obvious problem with LaCour's position. "I just think then there's no point having a special use permit...At the end of the day, there's a reason there's the permitting process. If there wasn't, we would just have an ordinance where it's like, 'Hey, you can't do this anymore.' "
Costantino is right. I hate analogies, but I consider this to be similar to jury selection for capital murder cases. The Supreme Court has ruled that final jury composition must be one that ensures an impartial consideration of whether the death sentence should be imposed on a defendant. Potential jurors who can never vote for the death penalty, say for religious or conscientous reasons, are disqualified from serving on juries in capital cases.
Likewise, only persons who can promise an impartial consideration of an application for a special use permit for which the City itself provides an avenue should serve on the City Plan Commission. If a vote for a special use permit is prejudged, the commissioner is not impartial. Why have a hearing at all? LaCour is free to have her own unconditional opposition to smoking, but if so she should have recused herself from voting on this case.
1 comment:
very good points.
Post a Comment