Forum Home  |  Politics & Government  |  General Politics

City of Tacoma violating it's own policy


by fredo
on 10/23/2011 @ 4:32pm
It is the policy of The City of Tacoma to:
 
"diligently collect due revenues and ensure compliance with revenue regulations"
 
So why isn't the city collecting the revenues due from Clear Channel signage violations?
 
Ignoring this debt and refusing to ensure compliance is a flat out violation of city policy.


by CaptainBritton on 10/23/2011 @ 5:30pm
Because the city officially signed away the right to fine Clear Channel Outdoor as part of the infamous Proposed Settlement Agreement. Therefore nullifying any past fines. Including our beloved fine-counter...

New fines based on the new ordinance begin March 1, 2012...You can read the lawyer-ly details below...

cnc-tacoma.com/new-a-pending/proposed-el...

And seeing as how the CCO will not be complying to our code on 3/1/12, we can ready the fine-counter, we're gonna ride the fine pony out of this recession! Kaaaaaaa-Chiiiiiingggg!!!



by fredo on 10/23/2011 @ 5:47pm
Thanks britton, well then I guess we could agree that the city was violating city policy every day before they signed the agreement. The city never "diligently" attempted to collect these fines therefore the policy was violated.
 
About a year ago I got a really nasty letter from the city because they figured out that my B&O tax was underpaid by about $7 one quarter. It even described the legal actions which the city had at it's disposal. Why employ heightened villigance to collect $7 and employ no diligence at collecting $30M? 

by fredo on 10/23/2011 @ 5:47pm
Thanks britton, well then I guess we could agree that the city was violating city policy every day before they signed the agreement. The city never "diligently" attempted to collect these fines therefore the policy was violated.
 
About a year ago I got a really nasty letter from the city because they figured out that my B&O tax was underpaid by about $7 one quarter. It even described the legal actions which the city had at it's disposal. Why employ heightened villigance to collect $7 and employ no diligence at collecting $30M? 

by fredo on 10/23/2011 @ 6:08pm
sorry about the double postings. don't know what's causing this.

by fredo on 10/23/2011 @ 6:08pm
sorry about the double postings. don't know what's causing this.

by Jesse on 10/23/2011 @ 6:52pm
I understand that if you draw up a contract and want to back out of it before the other party signs it, and you let them know you want out, you are legally able to stop the contract regardless of if the other party signs it or not.
If only there was an attorney that reads feedtacoma... I'm sure they could tell us... (sigh)

by fredo on 10/23/2011 @ 7:24pm
Well the city never got it's $30M (thanks city council for forfeiting the city's right to collect this debt), but it did get it's $7. Hopefully this will be enough to pay for Officer Fulgham's next rx for Advil PM.
 
On the subject of the $30M I'm pretty sure that would be taxable income for Clear Channel. They recieved a forebearance for a legally enforceable obligation. That's the same as $30M income.

by fredo on 10/23/2011 @ 7:24pm
Well the city never got it's $30M (thanks city council for forfeiting the city's right to collect this debt), but it did get it's $7. Hopefully this will be enough to pay for Officer Fulgham's next rx for Advil PM.
 
On the subject of the $30M I'm pretty sure that would be taxable income for Clear Channel. They recieved a forebearance for a legally enforceable obligation. That's the same as $30M income.

by Erik on 10/23/2011 @ 9:03pm
The Fine Counter has been turned off unfortunately by the city.
However, as Britton states, it is set to turn on full force on March 1, 2011.  Let's make sure the city does not allow it to be turned off this time and instead enforces the sign ordinance.

by Marty C on 10/23/2011 @ 11:06pm
The fines were suspended when the 2008 council, led by Mayor Baarsma, ordered the City Manager to enter into negotations with CCO to avoid expensive legal fees.

The 'proposed settlement agreement' (2010), was the outcome of those negotations and triggered the need for a comprehensive review by the planning commission, including public outreach and comment and resulted in a better code.

by fredo on 10/24/2011 @ 9:05am
Thanks Marty, always good to get your perspective.
The issue I'm trying to get a discussion started on is the council's adherance to it's own policies.
We have a policy adopted by the city council of applying "diligence to collect due revenues."
 
So I ask, where is the evidence that the city applied diligence in an effort to collect the millions that Clear Channel owed in fines?
 
And a related question is this: Why would the council waive a multi million dollar account recievable without public discussion when it's own policy is to "ensure compliance." You can't have a policy which both ensures compliance and suspends compliance with city laws. 

by Marty C on 10/24/2011 @ 10:59am
Sorry, I should have been more clear.  If I recall correctly, when some of the billboards became non-conforming the City began enforcement actions. CCO promptly filed a lawsuit based on the argument that they were protected by the 1st admendment.

At that time an injunction was filed halting the enforcement action, pending the out come of the lawsuit.  After considering the risks (could the City even win?) and costs the City entered negotations.     

by NineInchNachos on 10/24/2011 @ 11:39am
#occupyfinecounter

by fredo on 10/24/2011 @ 1:39pm
Marty, thanks, I think I understand better now.
 
If an ordinary citizen has a debt due to the city then the city policy is to diligently collect the revenue and ensure compliance.
 
If a large corporation has a debt due to the city, but they also have a team of lawyers ready to make trouble for the city, then the policy is not to diligently collect the revenue and suspend further compliance.
 
Why don't we just amend the city policies to establish that diligence regarding revenue owed to the city and compliance with revenue regulations is dealt with on a case by case basis?
 
Apparently the current policy is really nothing more then a sort of guideline.

by NineInchNachos on 10/24/2011 @ 1:48pm
corporations are people!  horrible pod people! 

by Mofo from the Hood on 10/24/2011 @ 2:04pm
Corporations Matter


by Mofo from the Hood on 10/24/2011 @ 2:04pm
Corporations Matter

by Mofo from the Hood on 10/24/2011 @ 2:08pm
Repetition is the soul of propaganda.

by NineInchNachos on 10/24/2011 @ 2:21pm
I KNEW you guys were in solidarity with #occupy movement.  I'm so proud *sniff* 

by Marty C on 10/24/2011 @ 3:03pm



by low bar on 10/25/2011 @ 1:58pm
i think doing two things would solve everyones problems at this level or at least make MBA students take notice of the masses:

1. Don't put your money, as in your savings or weekly paycheck, in a bank anymore. Just cash that sucker, buy a home safe and an ak 47 (like the one on the defend tacoma t-shirts, only real) instead. 

2. And two, stop shopping at Walmart.