CITY ISSUES AND MY VOTES...

Michelson-Hadley Heights Extension

Information on the Hadley-Heights projet has been moved to its own page.

Truck Parking

As I indicated in my April 2008 campaign, I voted in in favor of putting this question to the voters. The following resolution was overwhelmingly approved by the voters on November 4, 2008:

"Shall the City Council consider legislation that would allow a light duty passenger truck with no commercial designation to park on the City of Richmond Heights streets while continuing to not allow commercial trucks to do so?"

Truck parking has been an issue in our district and throughout the city for quite some time. In fact, it one of the issues I am most contacted about. I also agreed with Councilmember Jim Thompson's suggestion that RH drivers under the age of 18 also be allowed to weigh in on this measure. They, too, voted in favor of allowing truck parking on Richmond Heights streets.

Since the passage of the measure in November, the council has addressed language for a new ordinance that allows on-street truck parking. Unfortunately, the issues associated with the Hadley Project have precluded giving truck parking the attention it deserves. I am assured that this issue will be revisited in January 2009.

Concealed Weapons:

In April 2008, the council approved a bill to amend Ordinance 4788. The new bill made it a violation to carry certain CONCEALED weapons, including BB guns, paintball guns, and TOY GUNS. I supported this bill, as Chief Vilcek has indicated that the police department has encountered problems in this area. For instance, the police recently apprehended a male at the Galleria who was in possession of a very real looking toy weapon that the police believe could have been used in an attempted robbery or carjacking.

Note that the bill only applies to the CONEALED weapons. This means that it is NOT a violation to wear toy weapons as part of a costume, so long as the weapon is not concealed (so our children can still be cowboys/cowgirls and power rangers).

Manhasset Village Extension

On April 7, the developer of this project asked for an additional one-year extension (the Council already provided a six-month extension that is set to expire in late April). This was a difficult decision, as it harms the city to have developments "sit" for long periods of time. However, because of the weak residential housing market, it would not be helpful to try and force a bad residential development. There was a motion, which I seconded, to allow a 6-month extension. The motion did not gain momentum and the two District 4 councilwomen indicated a desire to grant the one-year extension. I ultimately voted in favor of the one-year extension, provided the developer pays to the City the taxes it would have paid had the old residential units not been demolished.

Paid for by Gina Mitten
Copyright 2008, 2009 Gina Mitten. All rights reserved.