Laserfiche WebLink
BB <br /> April 1,1,0 <br /> Over the past few weeks the Council and the citizens of Everett <br /> have been ngaged in'an important debate involving one aspect of <br /> o. sofThere a <br /> i that- xp e e the intent it <br /> and frame <br /> the community's wishes.s t saythat a confive <br /> of a ke with hhe billlbodard'i sould no discon- <br /> tinue talks with - 11 ybyy bringing <br /> gith ordinance <br /> to an abrupt strocess. It is in ifles <br /> rthe <br /> n sense legisla- <br /> tive <br /> t of the <br /> ordinance unclear and the cat clause the <br /> and <br /> confuging. In the unity <br /> should b allowed tonreview o nand play, <br /> n y on o sin hillA,hwhichme - <br /> treats only one facet of the original bill.sallow Allowing <br /> full f period three reading will p p ate <br /> t e fo� <br /> this discussion. <br /> total effect of <br /> Lastly,I 72-70 on he taro a d been-c h <br /> the original by the billboard <br /> industry that h they ldabe put out of bueiness by the originals <br /> bill,I it as o req and to place on public <br /> estimate of what d boom billboards willbeeffected <br /> y the present legislations If t have this sort <br /> of i ation'immedlately available,I not have <br /> o <br /> the administration ta.research this m expediently a esible <br /> consideration,for i <br /> o <br /> either for further con pof <br /> this Cbill or for future legislation. _ <br /> r these reasonsam vetoing c.Beil Bill 72- <br /> Yours very ruly, <br /> Robert C.Anderson <br /> Mayor <br /> n Michelson said h appreciated the made i the <br /> Councilman <br /> letter,although heedidn't'agree withall <br /> a would said i ch there were.6"allsent Councilmen t 0x. <br /> to continue further c neideration of the ordinance until April B, <br /> motion was seconded'.Councilman Cobert. <br /> be C Gilman n o son to table Bp <br /> e n i er of t nan n <br /> Arch <br /> red and <br /> said <br /> baker,a companieshadmade eery a fdrnpshas infor- <br /> eded,et they had always ebeen available talk with <br /> the <br /> Co r that <br /> Mayor regarding'theese b_ ordinances. He <br /> said theregu Council passeeea <br /> itheo billboard outo o <br /> Co <br /> ills i other type% e businesses the eSC <br /> • Would suffer,such as the banks,cigarette,omPaniesi and 1 <br /> business as by <br /> These <br /> b have their billboards <br /> down and he <br /> estimatede <br /> it would be a O esaid saw ah <br /> veto message aytthtthe orbdnytl9 against inthe substance <br /> of the ordinance. r.Bakerfelt h. the and <br /> mightit before <br /> would'want <br /> changes,b p that this wouldb <br /> weekfor <br /> reconsideration.Mr.Schmecelc the Ramada:In said that lhe bIllboard tris not the ne inRerested in this ordanance. He said y <br /> they had no objections to the sign board ordinance as proposed,but <br /> • ere only requesting they be given longer than'five years to <br /> ebaeew°indwereustries He felt that motel ethers r <br /> billboardther companies, that they would take tkis into appearcon- <br /> :. that <br /> council Bill Councilman <br /> a e'nf.an opponents <br /> true. They had met several times with bot p <br />