05-02-1960 - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

443 Request Santa Ana-Tustin Council of Churches reconsider Sections ~2~1 and ~232 (resorting) this property is being developed for industrial purposes~ especi~lly on ^nahurst Place and Hathaway Street as these are inter~or streets. On motion of Councilman Heinly seconded by Hubbard snd carried~ Preliminary Record of Survey Map No. 166 ~*as approved~ subject to conditions~ except that no s~de,~lkc be required on ~ay Street and ^nahurst Place. Mayor Hall said he had a ruling from the City Attorney that reconsideration of the repeal of Sections h231 and hSBR (resorting) would have to have been prior~ or at the ss~e time of the Cottucll Meeting an8 reconsideration must be made by one of those who voted for the repeal of this particular Ordinance. He further stated we have no action now before the City Council~ but we do have Sections ~l.O? and hl.lOi of the Los Angeles City Code presented by the Santa Ana-Tustin Council Of Churches requesting the adoption of these Sections. On motion of Councilman Gould~ seconde~ by Heinly and carried~ the Sections were received and filed. ~t the request ~f Councilman Brewer~ the Clerk read the Sections~ after which approximately sixty people stoa8 in favor of enacting these Sections. Reverend Garland Imcey of the Wilshire United Presbyterian Church stated it was connnon knowledge that S~nta has not only a City Council but also ~ Council of Churches which takes action. Fo~ this particular measure we, the Baptiats, Methodists and even Presbyterians did notii have a single dissenting vote. Everyone at the Civic Affairs Committee Meeting -- men~ women and the youth -- voted that these Or~inanees should not be repealed. Three members of the City Council have voted to repeal these Sections, and one member was willing to admit there is an error in his judgment. Please reconsider these Ordi- nances st your earliest convenience for the betterment of this City~ in the years that lie ahead. Reverend Robert P. Shuler of the First Methodist Church~ stated h~ had studied the reasons for the removal of these Sections~ and one of the reasons is that these Ordinances are unconstitutional. I would be interested to know if outside private opinion ha~ any right to feel these are unconstitutional~ if we ar~ worried about the constitutionality~ I think the courts should decide~ that~ as tha~ has more weight than our private opinion. You talk about civil rights being im- prove8 upon~ suppose~ I wanted to have a nmriJuana party in mv home~ then you woul~ have no right to serve any summous~ because you are infringing on mv personal liber~ ties. To say that a man's personal liberties are infringed upon because the laws about dope, prostitution~ etc. are such that the Police cs~not come into the home~/~ for the public good~ are ~ong~ and I cannot see any wlid reason~ or overt reason, or superficial reason why you should abolish these laws. T~o out of three say thief is a necessary law~ Reverend Glenn McFarland of the Reformed Presbyterian Church stated that several years ago he appeared before the City Council with regard to d~cing and drinking. Some of the Council Members gave the reason that Santa is a growing City and should have laws that would all~¢ for its growth. Certainly if our Sister City~ Los Angeles~ feels it is necessary to have 8n Ordinance concern lng resorting and the use of property for resorting: Santa Ana ~hould be concerned with ~ similar Ordinance, which ~,~i!l protect ourselves and the future generations. I implore you to consider this Ordinance again before taking a final step. Peverend Jay ~. ~eener of the Parkview Reformed Church said the Cotuncil Members should have uppermost in mind the stand of the people~ as they are elected by the people. I find it difficult to reconcile that if these Ordinances are not unconstitutional., ~here does the pr ~. u~ . cc~e from? Why is a change being made? Are you represent-~