Resident says state building code already governs ordinance specifics
BARRINGTON — Candleberry Road resident Ron Russo went before the town council Monday night and asked the board members to abandon two proposed demolition ordinances before forwarding them to the public hearing phase.
Mr. Russo said the ordinances were unnecessary because state building codes already governed the specifics addressed by the proposed laws.
Council member Kate Weymouth proposed the ordinances — 2009-5 Chapter 79 calls for certain standards to be maintained for non-residential properties once structures on the sites are razed, while 2009-6 Chapter 80 would require increased notification to the public when a structure is demolished.
Mr. Russo told the council that if they had issues with specific parts of the existing state building code they needed to bring those concerns to the Rhode Island State Building Code Committee. He said the state building code was created so that all cities and towns in Rhode Island had uniform rules to follow during building construction and demolition. Creating rules specific for the town that would supersede state building code is not allowed, said Mr. Russo.
While Ms. Weymouth did not comment on the proposed ordinances, council vice president Jeff Brenner did.
In response to Mr. Russo’s request, Mr. Brenner said he was “skeptical” of the ordinances but wanted to allow for the appropriate process to take place. He said objections and concerns about the proposed ordinances should be aired during the public hearing phase, which is set to take place at the December council meeting.
Council member Jamie Schwartz challenged Mr. Brenner briefly on his comments, asking why the council vice president would allow these ordinances to continue along the process if in fact they would be negated by state building code in the end. Mr. Brenner said he was not sure if the proposed law changes would be negated by state building code.
Barrington Town Solicitor Michael Ursillo, seated next to Town Manager Peter DeAngelis, did not comment on the debate.
Despite Mr. Russo’s objections, the council voted to send both proposed ordinances to the public hearing phase. Mr. Russo interjected as the council began its motion and asked that the board follow the proper procedure and read aloud the entire ordinance before taking the vote. Council President June Speakman filled Mr. Russo’s request.
“Good point, Mr. Russo,” she said.
Josal Street resident Mary Teixeira approached the council about the proposed ordinance that would govern properties after structures are razed. She asked why it only pertained to businesses and not residences.
Ms. Speakman thanks Ms. Teixeira for her question and said it would be considered at the public hearing.
Why didn’t Mr. Ursillo provide an answer to the simple legal question posed of whether the “proposed demolition ordinance” is preempted by State law? Are we just paying Mr. Ursillo to sit in a chair for these meetings?
Mr. Brenner said he was “skeptical” about the ordinance, but wanted a hearing anyway. What the heck is that Mr. Brenner?
And: “Mr. Brenner said he was not sure if the proposed law changes would be negated by state building code.” Doesn’t Attorney Brenner know how to look up and read a Rhode Island law?
Why didn’t the Council defer having a hearing until Attorney Brenner or Attorney Ursillo could take 5 minutes to read the law. This is a threshold matter question after-all.
This seems to be another TOWN COUNCIL FOLLOY like the windless windmill, yell at judges tirade, yell at Blacks tirades, mean and illegal treatment of Daunis ROW owner, bogus reval, double digit raises for town employees in the great recession, take town road for town employee scam, public records scandal, etc., etc.
Oh, I think we do need to maintain an appropriately labeled “scorecard” until these bums are all replaced.
Thank you, Ron Russo for objecting to the introduction of these bad ordinances.
As Mr. Russo’s says, there is a State Building Code that covers demolition and pre-empts these ordinances. The State Code pre-empts the municipalities from enacting their own codes because if the municipalities each had their own code, there would be 39 different codes. It would be a non-uniform mess.
There is specific language in each of these proposed ordinances that is pre-empted by the State Code and/or has other problems. Apparently, the Town Council will learn about these substantive problems when they hold their hearings on these ordinances.
What are the Barrington taxpayers paying Mr. Ursillo for anyway?
Even though Mrs. Weymouth is crafty about couching her ordinances in terms of “pre-demolition” and “post-demolition”, that’s not her real purpose. The real purpose is to delay, dissuade, discourage and stop demolition.
Mrs. Weymouth doesn’t want people to be able to demolish buildings that they own. Mrs. Weymouth wants to be the one to control what people can and cannot do with buildings that Mrs. Weymouth does not own.
Mrs. Weymouth didn’t even introduce these two ordinances that she is determined to enact. Mrs. Speakman had to do it for Mrs. Weymouth.
But Mrs. Speakman apparently didn’t know how to introduce the ordinances.
And even though Mr. Ursillo was sitting right there he wasn’t the one who instructed Mrs. Speakman about her error – it was Mr. Russo who had to make the Council aware of their procedural error.
What are the Barrington taxpayers paying Mr. Ursillo for anyway?
Over a number of months, Mr. Ursillo’s firm has drafted and redrafted these proposed ordinances. The public has successfully challenged the bad language in these ordinances. And these ordinances still do not pass muster. Maybe that’s what happens when the lawyer listens to an ardent proponent who doesn’t know anything about the law.
Maybe the Town Council was hoping that the public would get weary of this little cat-and-mouse game and then Mrs. Weymouth will finally have her ordinances.
What are the Barrington taxpayers paying Mr. Ursillo for anyway?
Next month, the Town Council will (again) hold hearings on these (redrafted and redrafted and redrafted and redrafted) ordinances.
Will the rest of the Town Council walk out onto this ordinance limb with Mrs. Weymouth?
We’ll see.
This council specializes in creating and fostering unnecessary controversy...
... at every turn ...
windless windmills? ... arrogant and inappropriate letters? ... cramming through bogus revals? ... double digit pay raises during financial crisis? ... bumbling town manager to negotiate our multi-million dollar union contract? ... hiding public documents? ... willfully and knowingly superseding state law?
c'mon ... are they actually trying to cause trouble ... or does it just seem that way?
How about some basic common sense here for a change? ...
Stop playing house at our expense, people.
The games are over.
We would like our council to be guided by a common sense approach (like not wasting our time and energy with this nonsense) and some legitimate and creative initiatives (like helping people work together to solve real problems).
Why don't we start with the council telling us what they believe to be the three most pressing challenges facing Barrington residents? Then ... maybe we could get focused as a community to address these pressing issues and move forward.
I'm sure that reinventing the wheel on state building codes and superseding state regulations is NOT on our list of top priorities (and if it is then we would be better off to just disband this council and start from scratch).
Let's get serious here people - don't we have better things to do?
Hey ... cudos to Doc though ... he's starting to get it ... you don't have to keep following these dumbos right over the cliff every time ... and this group's unanimous voting record is nothing to be proud of ... rather it is a red flag here in the land of the free and the home of the brave ...
Next time ... tell Widemouth straight up (in advance) that you think her proposal is nonsense ... challenge the source directly ... tell her that it's a terrible waste of the taxpayers time and money ... and back up your strong position with the facts ... tell her that the state already has state-wide standard regulations in place and that the town has neither the resources nor the expertise to manage this process any better than the state ... tell her that attempting to mirror state law in this area is a complete waste of our time and that attempting to supersede state law in this area is counterproductive ... make it clear to her (in advance) that if she insists on bringing such folly to this table that you will not support it ...
... then pound your fist on the table and challenge your four colleagues to get serioius and focus on Barrington's priorities ... ask them to express and defend their priorities for Barrington's town government ... and if they can't express or defend priorities properly, then lay out your priorities ...
... Tell them that you want an efficient and timely resolution to this reval problem (including a plan to deal with the angry mob in the case of dismissal and a plan for an out of court resolution with BET in the case where this drags on) ...
... Tell them that you want real action on the table to help our young people especially our teens ... remind them of the seriousness of our past problems ... review the report that Widemouth commissioned way back when ... and call for a focus on action ... demand a series of outreach programs from Barney (ones that force him to fully and positively engage our police officers with Barrington teens) ... demand that specific ideas be brought to the table to provide our teens with more (including the possibility of a dedicated and staffed Barrington teen center)...
... Tell them that you want real action on a third priority ... there's plenty of good third priorities to choose from, bud ... how about securing a legitimate union negotiator now so that we don't get taken to the cleaners with Eddie? ... or how about pressing Mr. Big Bonus town manager to apply all his longevity to find a way to deliver 5% in operating cost reductions within 90 days? ... impossible? ... yes, if you don't demand it ... or how about we press our town planner to earn his keep by delivering a comprehensive plan for energy efficiency, including viable steps to reduce the town's total energy consumption by 10% within 120 days ...
Any one of these initiatives is a much better use of our time, our focus, and our limited resources ...
Rather than creating new problems in Barrington ... why doesn't the Town Council focus on solving some of the problems that we already have here?
Doc, tell your colleagues on the council that you want to begin solving problems ... not creating more of them ... Tell them that you think that because of all the distractions of the past year or so, that the council has lost its ability to focus on basic problem solving for its constituents ... Tell them that you want the council to re-double their efforts now on solving real problems for residents ... Tell them that you want to start on the smaller ones and work your way up to the bigger ones ...
Start small here ... Call Eddie and have him get on the ball to get the sand piles tested and moved for those neighbors over in Bay Spring. That would be a nice little easy win for the council as it would be a demonstration of responsiveness to the neighbors' issues. It would show that you are not just a talker ... that you are RWA to get things done ... It would be a good signal to Eddie too that you are interested in him solving problems and not just talking about who owns the sand ... It would only take a couple of days to get this DONE and you could use the goodwill. Joshy will write a good follow-up story and and you'll have one in the bag.
OK ... now you're rolling, Doc ... next ... call Eddie back and tell him that winter is coming and that you have some concerns that you want addressed by him before the snow starts falling ... tell him that you want to make sure that the school kids have a safe walkway to all Barrington schools this winter ... tell him that you've noticed many school kids walking in busy roadways to school because many of the sidewalks on busy streets remain snowed in after the storms ... tell him that you believe this to be a very dangerous situation ... and that you want this risk removed immediately ... tell him that the old trick of shifting the burden of shoveling town sidewalks onto the residents (who don't own the sidewalk) is unfair, unwise, unsafe, and unacceptable ... Tell him that there is so much danger for the kids and liability for the town in this situation that you can't believe nothing has been done about it already by him or by the council ... tell him that if Barrington ever had a tragic accident where one of its students was hurt, that you would never forgive yourself for not quickly acting to solve this problem in a reasonable way ... then tell Eddie to bring back to you 2-3 options for a reasonable solution within 48 hours ... tell him that the only criiteria for his proposed solutions is that the town itself take the action to resolve this safety issue (and not push the responsibility back onto the residents along these roadways) ... remember ... the residents have no interest or responsibility or liability in the town sidewalk ... then remind Eddie that you approved his big double-digit longevity bonus in the middle of a recession ... and that it is this type of problem solving that you expect from him becaues of the "longevity" premium that we are now paying to him ...
OK, Doc. go get 'em ... and remember action (not talk). Do you expect that we can have these two problems solved before the first snowfall?
The BarringtonTown Council has no business interfering with state regulations in this area. Why would we want an extra layer of regulation? ... and why would we trust new regulations with a group that can't even maintain our public records? ... or a fair and appropriate tax base for the town? Are they suddenly experts in building regulation now too?
INEPT ... INEPT ... INEPT
Why give more responsibility to an inept group (for anything, much less something that is already regulated)?
