Laserfiche WebLink
<br />Mounds View Planning Commission March 1, 2000 <br />Regular Meeting Page 12 <br /> <br /> <br />the City should not be in the business of providing a means to advertise gambling. He pointed <br />out that if they were going to restrict advertising for cigarettes or alcohol, which also cause <br />social problems, they should not allow advertising for gambling. <br /> <br />Chairperson Peterson inquired if it was the consensus of the Commission to add language in the <br />first stipulation to indicate they be more specific regarding the right to refuse objectionable <br />advertising content. <br /> <br />Commissioner Stevenson stated he would agree to this. He explained that they do not need to <br />address all objectionable content, however, the Commission could indicate they desire that <br />gambling be included as objectionable content, upon consideration. He pointed out that the City <br />would not be aware of the Commissions’ opinion unless something to this effect is included in <br />the resolution. He added that this language might be incorporated into the lease, or ignored and <br />stricken. <br /> <br />Planning Associate Ericson suggested the language indicate “The City should retain the right to <br />refuse objectionable advertising content, including advertising promoting gambling.” <br /> <br />Chairperson Peterson inquired if it was the consensus of the Commission to include the <br />language, as stated. <br /> <br />Commissioners Berke and Johnson stated they did not agree. Commissioner Johnson pointed <br />out that not all people view this type of advertising as objectionable. <br /> <br />Commissioner Laube stated he had no problem with this language. <br /> <br />Commissioner Hegland stated he did not wish to see gambling signs, however, he did not believe <br />this was the only objectionable advertising content, and he was uncertain that it would help to <br />specifically restrict this item. <br /> <br />Commissioner Stevenson stated he would agree to the addition of this language. <br /> <br />Commissioner Miller suggested the matter be put to a vote. <br /> <br />MOTION/SECOND: Miller/Kaden. To Include Additional Language in the First Stipulation, to <br />Indicate that the City Should Retain the Right to Refuse Objectionable Advertising Content, <br />Including Advertising Promoting Gambling. <br /> <br />Commissioner Stevenson stated there currently exists a list of items that are considered <br />objectionable, and the issue of gambling does not appear to be addressed. He pointed out that <br />the Commission was not attempting to dictate what is moral or immoral, or to determine what <br />constitutes objectionable material, however, they believe this item should be amongst those <br />included on the objectionable materials list, for consideration by the City.