Laserfiche WebLink
th <br />Ed Reggi, 500 North 13 Street <br />Mr. Reggi said he was a well known civic-rights activist and has a problem with some <br />of the wording in Bill 9112. He stated that according to the ACLU, the government <br />cannot deny the public access to traditional public forum nor can it regulate the use <br />of the forum based on content of one’s speech. However the government is <br />permitted to impose reasonable time, place and manner restrictions within a public <br />forum so long as regulations are narrowly tailored to serve a significant government <br />interest and leave open ample channels of communications. Mr. Reggi was <br />concerned that someone could hold the City liable if someone’s civil liberty was <br />violated. He offered alternative suggestions to the bill as use of guides on bicycles <br />with labels and have direct communication to the police. Mr. Reggi also said that on <br />Washington Ave they issue and keep track of warnings and fine violators using <br />existing ordinances. Lastly he suggested locating Police sub-stations in the Loop. <br /> <br /> <br />Introduced by Ms. Ricci <br />2. <br />BILL 9113 – An ordinance amending Chapter 2 of the University City Municipal <br />Code, relating to administration and personnel, by enacting therein a new chapter to <br />be known as “Chapter 2.09 Department of Administrative Services”, and by <br />amending Section 2.08.010, relating to departments enumerated-heads of <br />departments designated, to reflect such addition. <br /> <br />CITIZEN COMMENTS <br />Edward McCarthy, 7101 Princeton Ave <br />Mr. McCarthy stated that this bill just adds a new administrative services department <br />with finance and personnel mentioned though out creating more overhead that can <br />be used in the future. <br /> <br />Introduced by Ms. Crow <br />3. <br />BILL 9114 – An ordinance An ordinance amending Title 9 of the University City <br />Municipal Code, relating to public peace, morals and welfare, by enacting therein a <br />new section to be known as “Section 9.08.290 Domestic Partnerships”, and providing <br />a penalty <br /> <br />CITIZEN COMMENTS <br />Margaret Johnson, 7509 Gannon <br />Ms. Johnson was pleased that Mayor Welsch and Mr. Crow worked together on this <br />bill. She asked how she could get a copy of the bill to read. <br /> <br />th <br />Ed Reggie, 500 North 13 St. <br />Mr. Reggi asked Council to vote for this bill as the City of St. Louis passed a similar <br />bill eleven years ago and have seen nothing but growth and positive people and <br />business moving into the City and utilizing this domestic partnership. <br /> <br />Edward McCarthy, 7101 Princeton Ave. <br />Mr. McCarthy said the bill defined a domestic relationship between two unmarried <br />adults thus excluding 50 percent of University City residents who are married. He <br />noted that if this is supposed to be a bill including everybody, why are married <br />individuals excluded. Mr. McCarthy asked why create more paper work by filing fees <br />and what happens when there is a break-up and there is no charge?. He then asked <br />if two gay men go to Iowa to get married and come back to University City, the state <br />of Missouri does not recognize it and wanted to know if University City does. <br /> <br /> <br />