August 2013 Regular Bellevue Council Meeting

Below is the unedited video of Bellevue Borough’s August 2013 Regular Council Meeting. The meeting concluded with a 30 minute executive session for “personnel matters,” but was immediately adjourned thereafter.

The meeting included an unanticipated debate over the long fought over “Pawn Shop Ordinance.” You might recall that in spite of well reasoned arguments to rewrite the ordinance by long time Bellevue business owner Mike Fodi, a month ago council voted to pass the so called “pawn shop ordinance” supposedly designed to protect the victims of theft who lose precious jewelry or family heirlooms to family members/friends. However, prior to its adoption, Mayor Doscher vetoed the new ordinance under the justification that it did undue harm to longstanding legitimate businesses in the borough. Since the veto council members Jane Braunlich, Jim/Sue Viscusi, and Linda Woshner have been dead set on overturning the veto arguing there is nothing in the books protecting the precious jewelry of Bellevue residents. With an apparent disdain for businesses like Fodi Jewelers who are successful in turning a profit and sustaining their work, Jane Braunlich forced a vote to override the veto but did not receive the required 2/3rds majority vote to be successful.

The three lameduck council members Jane Braunlich, Jim and Sue Viscusi were joined by council president Linda Woshner in a vote to override the veto. Meanwhile, Lynn Heffley and Jim Scisciani had an apparent change of heart as they exchanged their previous “Yea” votes for the ordinance to “Nay” along with Mark Helbling and Kathy Coder preventing the override of the veto.


One Response to “August 2013 Regular Bellevue Council Meeting”

  1. At 25:30 in the video, Mrs. Viscusi claims that there are no laws in place that give the police something to work with. There are already laws in place for robbery and theft. It’s the laws job to catch thieves, not recover a gold ring. If they recover the property in the process of catching the thief, then that’s a big PLUS! It’s the property owners responsibility to protect their property in whichever way they see fit. If that includes not allowing a “sticky-fingered” family member into their home, then so be it. The pawn shop ordinance has been “justified” by members of council because they feel that a lot of people in our borough are being robbed by their family members (mostly because of addiction). This is not a government matter whatsoever. I’m happy to see that our council members are coming to their senses about this issue and voted NOT to over ride the mayors veto.
    These people are out of their minds to think that they can create this utopia where everything is rainbows and unicorns. Protect your assets, belongings, and property people! If you get burglarized, there are laws in place already to deal with that. But it’s not the governments job to protect you from yourself because you’re not willing to protect your valuables from your family members.

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s

%d bloggers like this: