Laserfiche WebLink
I100%N <br />POPHAM, HAIK, SCHNOBRICH, KAUFMAN 6 DOT-.. L o- <br />October 12, 1982 <br />Page 3 <br />11. The Council then recevS ed the meeting at 8:40 p.m. <br />For the above reasons, it is obvious that as in the past, <br />the City had no intention of holding a meaningful public <br />hearing on the ordinance. The city wrongfully refused to <br />answer questions asked and "railroaded" through amendments <br />after the public hearing was closed. The lack of procedural <br />due process and lack of a meaningful public hearing was <br />underscored again by the fact that after the ordinance was <br />adopted, the Mayor gave to a citizen a certificate of thanks <br />which had already been dated as October 11, 1982, on the <br />presumption that the ordinance would he adopted that evening <br />regardless of the input at the public hearing. <br />I have never seen such callous disregard for the <br />procedural and substantive due process rights of property <br />owners as has been exhibited during the continued denial of my <br />clients' development proposals and the adoption of this <br />wetlands ordinance. <br />This letter serves as a notice of claim for loss of <br />property value and denial of my clients' legal rights, to the <br />City based on the above actions. <br />At this time, I demand that the City answer in writing <br />the questions set forth in my letter of October 11, 1982 and <br />that the City provide immediately a certified copy of the <br />ordinance as adopted, a copy of the minutes of the October 11, <br />1982, Council meeting, and a copy of the information requested <br />in that letter. <br />I await your response. <br />Very truly yours, <br />Bruce D. Malkerson <br />BD M/ j f <br />1487j <br />