This article is a current example of where the freedom of speech of citizens of Mt Vernon is blocked by the rules imposed by City Council. However in this case there was a public meeting that granted the public 3 minutes to voice their views provided the 1 hour time limit set aside was not exceeded.
Knox Cattle Dam Issue Overview
Date: October 10, 2019
Dam safety has been an important focus in the US for many years (Document 1).
Ohio has a “reasonable use rule” for stormwater drainage (Document 2). Liability only attaches when the upstream flow of surface water is “unreasonable”. If changes “downstream” cause harm “upstream”, it seems that the party responsible for the change should also incur liability.
The City Planning Commission approved The Landings Phase V (Mallard Pointe) on December 13, 1999. Meeting minutes (Document 3) do not reflect any discussion of contacting ODNR for input on approving development in the immediate area of the Knox Cattle Dam. At this time, the Dam was Class II. (Document 3a) (Document 3b)
The City Planning Commission initially approved the Crown Hill Condominiums on May 9, 2001 (Document 4). City Engineering, the Safety Service Director and the developer said several times that Crown Hill was not in the flood plain. This was not true as noted in ODNR’s November 15, 2015 report (Document 6). All participants agreed that the Dam was of earth construction and not engineered. The developer planned to “beef-up” the Dam with fill dirt. There was no discussion of contacting ODNR for input on building in the area or the value of using fill dirt to strengthen the Dam.
ODNR inspected the Dam on April 30, 2008 and followed-up with an October 14, 2009 letter to “Dam Owners” (Document 5). They found that the Dam was poorly configured for high flows. Of particular concern were the houses located directly downstream (5-10 feet vertically and 15-100 feet horizontally from the toe of the Dam). As a result, ODNR changed the classification from II to I.
By David L. Hudson Jr., First Amendment Scholar
“The public nature of the legislative process and the right of citizens to participate in and voice
their opinions about that process are at the heart of democratic government. The government
may not impose viewpoint-based restrictions on expression in a limited public forum ……….”
City of Dayton v. Esrati (1997), the Ohio Appeals Court
A citizen feels strongly about an issue in the community. He or she attends a city council
meeting to voice those concerns. Unfortunately, the powers that be prohibit the citizen from
addressing the controversial topic. Have the citizen’s First Amendment rights been violated?
Such a scenario is not a product of a healthy imagination. It is a daily reality for countless
citizens across the country.
Sometimes government officials need to silence disruptive citizens or to prohibit endless
repetition. However, other times the officials may be squelching citizen speech because they
want to suppress the message. This article seeks to explain the legal parameters surrounding
the regulation of citizen speech.