Debate Challenge Letter to the Editor 1/7/15
I
challenge City Manager Brenton Lewis to a debate on the
legal advice he gave to the Planning and
Zoning Commission and to City Council regarding a zoning change in July
2013.
It is
pretty silly that after a year and a half of documentation, letters, and
continuing legal filings, I still haven’t received an explanation from
City Manager Lewis on his legal assertion that ultimately caused 79
Llano property owners to lose their property rights.
The
City of Llano has already spent $20,000 in
legal fees to shield City Manager Lewis from explaining his legal
assertion. Not $20,000 to explain but $20,000 to avoid explaining.
Whatever Lewis’ explanation, it will not cost the city
anything.
Why
is it so difficult for a citizen to question their own city government?
I even asked
Mayor Virdell directly to schedule a debate to answer the question and
end the legal spending that is protecting Brenton Lewis. At first,
Mayor Virdell agreed
to the debate but then never responded to follow-ups on actually having
the debate.
City
Council has been asked numerous times to settle the issue and stop the
legal spending but Mayor Virdell unilaterally
controls the city council agenda, even closed meetings, so the city
council has not had a vote.
This
debate is important because Mayor Virdell, Planning and Zoning
Commission, and City Council are pushing forward with a
complete rewrite/overhaul of the entire
zoning ordinance that, among other changes, will change South Ford
Street from residential to commercial zoning.
It is
also important to challenge the illegal actions of your city government.
So it
comes to this – a public request for a debate - in public, in a
scheduled closed session of city council or in writing. I have already
provided my position on the debate question
in writing to Brenton Lewis, Mayor Virdell, and City Council.
For
those interested in the entire saga of this issue, please see
other articles here,
here, and here and complete set of
documentation here.
Marc
Sewell
Ad for the debate was also placed in the same issue
of the paper:
BACK