71st and Harvard lawsuit to go forward
A shot across the bow of the City from 71st & Harvard homeowners, via their attorney, Louis Bullock. The next to last paragraph is a great summary of the case:
The lawsuit soon to be filed will also seek remedies for the City's violation of the Constitution of the United States. In violation of the due process clause of the Constitution, my clients were denied a hearing or any semblance of fundamental fairness. The rules of the process were continually changed to fit the goals of F&M Bank and its supporters in City government. The clear objective of a majority on the City Council was to deny these citizens their right to fairness and to petition their government; they acheived that objective. In short, my clients were steamrolled to serve narrow economic and political interests.
This is an issue that has already affected homeowners in many parts of the city, and anyone could find themselves in the same situation -- seeking fair treatment from the City and being denied. (You can find out how to help by clicking here. The neighborhood you save may be your own.)
You can read the whole letter by clicking the next link.
November 25, 2003City Clerk's Office
City of Tulsa, Oklahoma
Tulsa City HallWendy Z. Martin
Secretary to the City Council
of the City of Tulsa, Oklahoma
Tulsa City HallRe: City Council Approval, over Homeowners' Protest
of Rezoning of SW Corner of 71st and Harvard
by F&M Bank to Light Office w/ PUD (Z-6902/PUD-687)
Protest under 42 Tulsa Rev. Ordinances 1703.EOn behalf of my clients, home owners in the area of 71st and Harvard Avenue and other persons concerned about the treatment of homeowners appearing before the City Conucil, I wish to inform you that we are preparing a lawsuit seeking to have the Court hold void the decision of a majority of the City Council and the Mayor of Tulsa, granting a change of zoning so as to allow F&M Bank to construct a bank and office building on the corner of 71st Street and Harvard Avenue.
As is well known, my clients filed protests over the proposed change of zoning. These protests were filed in conformance with 11 O.S. 43-105 and 1703.E of [Title 42 of] the Ordinances of the City of Tulsa. A protest was filed by the owners of 50% oor more of the lots within a 300 foot radius of the exterior boundary of the lot for which zoning was sought to be changed. The law states that, in the event of the filing of such protests, the passage of the zoning change requires a three-fourths majority of the City Council. The Council, acting without the required three-fourths majority, illegally disregarded these protests and approved the requested change of zoning. The ordinance passed is therefore null and void and without any legal effect.
The lawsuit soon to be filed will also seek remedies for the City's violation of the Constitution of the United States. In violation of the due process clause of the Constitution, my clients were denied a hearing or any semblance of fundamental fairness. The rules of the process were continually changed to fit the goals of F&M Bank and its supporters in City government. The clear objective of a majority on the City Council was to deny these citizens their right to fairness and to petition their government; they acheived that objective. In short, my clients were steamrolled to serve narrow economic and political interests.
In our action, we will seek to have the Court hold void the actions of the City in rezoning this property. It is important that, should there be any change in the property as a result of the illegal actions by the City, Plaintiffs will further seek to have the City restore the property to its current condition. In addition to such other relief as might be appropriate, we will seek attorney fees and the cost of this action.
Should you wish to discuss this matter, please feel free to call.
Sincerely,
[signed]
Louis W. Bullockcc: Martha Rupp Carter
City of Tulsa Legal DepartmentRoy Johnsen
201 W 5th, Tulsa
Subscribe to this blog's feed: