News from the City....

PP didn't get a permit for the 40 foot banner they put up outside the building. I see a theme.

Kristen, where can I access that info?

I posted this last night -- and still hold by my statements.

I can understand the expediency of getting this into the State's Attorneys hands before the court date however; I would have expected an amended document with the complete opinion BEFORE the city ruled on the matter.

My post from last night:

Please note the footer at the bottom of the Memo from Phillip A Luetkehans.

"Given the expedited time frame within which a report was due because of federal court litigation, this report is a summary of our findings and research. We have not yet received all the information requested from City staff."

Now didn't the Mayor promise the public that this would not be rushed?

Here is the video - http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gZ7J_59XOpE

My mom works for the City and she said that's the buzz all over the building. You can probably call the permits department, maybe community development, I'm not sure of the correct department.

Jill call the Mayor's office. He was actually the one who saw it on the news and got mad. Maybe if enough people call he'll have them remove it. Right now people probably don't even know that PP is in violation. I've already called.

This is in Chapter 41 SIGNS of the City's ordinances:
Attention-getting device: Any pennant, valance, banner, searchlight, balloon, bare bulb-lighting, or similar device or ornamentation designed to attract attention.

(4) Attention-getting devices for grand openings.
a. Such signs shall be permitted only for the grand opening of the business at that particular location.
b. Permits for such signs shall be limited to thirty (30) days. Such signs shall be removed upon expiration of the permit.
(5) Attention-getting devices for special events.
a. Attention-getting devices may be used to promote community activities, holiday celebrations, carnivals, festivals, and parades.
b. Permits for such devices shall be limited to thirty (30) days prior to and one (1) day after the event being promoted.
c. Such devices which are over public property shall require a license pursuant to section 41-10(B) hereof, as well as a permit.

Well, I just called the City and the woman answering didn't know what I was talking about and said someone would have to check into it and call me back.

Charles, good research.

Charles, in fact, I just gave you the hat tip for your Luetkehans find. I recalled reading your comment last night, which led me to look for it.

I just called the permits department and they said it would take a week to get a permit minimum. I wonder if they will make them remove it until they get one.

Jill - that is the typical response by the secretary(ies.) They said the same thing to me today and when I called to voice my opinion about PP, after I heard PP was urging people to call the City to support them a couple weeks ago.

Kristen, great sleuthing. Let me know if your mom hears Aurora forced PP to take the sign down. Send it to me in an email marked, "News Tip." There's a link on the right side of my home page.

The sign PP is showing on their blog looks considerably smaller than 40 feet. Wonder why?

Clinic story is up on the Drudgereport....

http://www.drudgereport.com/

I believe that the City gave the attorneys instructions to specially limit their investigation to Gemini's dealings with the City, and to ignore the inevitable truth, that Planned Parenthood will be leasing the space from Gemini.

Given this, I believe that the attorneys gave us clues, or in fact - a road map, as to the zoning issues surrounding this property; and the not for profit company - Planned Parenthood. Why else would the attorneys leave these findings open-ended? Why would they make the statements as to a for-profit entity? Why make this distinction? Or comment on the question regarding the lease? I believe that we all know the answer on this. They stumbled onto something. Now I won't speculate that the city did/did not want them to find this, but rather, I believe, the attorneys' instructions were to be narrowly focused on this.

Charles--Your observations are right on the money. My not being an attorney, perhaps someone could illuminate on the following:
The Leutkehans report refers to the abortuary as a "medical clinic" for the purposes of defining its zoning status. However it seems everytime we try to have abortuaries abide by the same standards as other "medical clinics" then all of the sudden they are not "medical clinics" per se but seem to fall into a singular class of facility. How is it they can have it both ways--not having to abide by normal "medical clinic" protocol, yet enjoying the zoning status of a "medical clinic" in order to gain zoning for their facility under the radar?
Second, how is it that the question of a "material misrepresentation" is apparently dismissed on the basis of referencing only one or possibly two documents? There were multiple documents in which the city/staff/aldermen were misled--a pattern of deceit. Judge Charles Norgle refered to the failure to properly name the certain tenant as an "obfuscation". Are we to believe that in all of case law, that nowhere was an obfuscation cited as a material misrepresentation?
Lastly, why is it Planned Parenthood gets to clarify the type of surgery(s) they will provide without having a zoning hearing on the complete question of their application--they are now saying the abortions will be first trimester/early second trimester abortions. We can open up part of the application process well after the initial hearings in order to amend for the benefit of Planned Parenthood, but the citizens of Aurora and local medical community are still denied input on the whole issue--how is this right?