From: M.J. McCauley
There is still hope the unconstitutional 30% rule will be eliminated or changed to a smaller percentage.
All citizens and property owners should be happy that the nationwide Institute of Justice is going to appeal the local district judge’s ruling to let the 30% rule stand.
It appears that all governments want to control their citizens more and more. The change by the city from ordinance zone to city charter shows the city wants more power.
Lillian Vieth’s letter to the editor on the 30% effect on her should be read by all. What kind of factual proof did the court want to show it was not legal? If it is unconstitutional then it is illegal.
The court quoted in one paper as follows: “Where there is a legitimate distinction, the fact that one person is eligible and another is ineligible does not mean the regulation is not uniform.”
Please reader, look at the above quote. This alone shows that different homeowners are not treated the same and this violates their right to equal treatment.
Why does the court have to “presume the legislation is constitutional?” This means the court believes something without proof.
An appeal from this district court may give proof of constitutionality and also treat the city citizens equally.
The city could save taxpayer’s money by eliminating the 30% rule.