Site icon The Observer

Auburn Council hears from outraged citizens

The Observer Staff

BY DANIEL SCHMIDT
FOR THE OBSERVER

AUBURN — Outrage over the destruction of a bald eagle’s nest in northern Auburn ignited Tuesday’s Auburn City Council meeting as concerned citizens and council members condemned the developer’s decision.
That anger comes after it was revealed developer Hughston Homes cut down the tree containing the nest on Saturday despite allegedly promising city officials they would discuss the removal on Monday before proceeding.
As a result, the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, which issued the permit to remove the nest, is now reviewing if the company properly followed mandatory terms and conditions included with that approval.
It is currently unclear exactly what the destruction of the nest will mean for the two eagles, nicknamed Jim and Pam, moving forward.
Mayor Ron Anders, who along with Ward 3 Councilor Beth Witten led efforts within the city to save the nest, characterized the situation as “disappointing.”
“We believed going into the weekend that we would have an opportunity yesterday [Monday] morning to have a discussion with the owners of this property to try to find any way to save the situation and to allow the nest potentially to remain,” Anders said. “That discussion did not occur because the nest came down in the meantime. I am sorry that we didn’t have a chance to have that discussion.”
Witten, who represents the ward where the nest was formerly located, said she remains invested in the eagles’ welfare and thanked community members who have expressed concern before blasting the developers.
“It does not go past me that Hughston Homes deceived me personally into thinking that the city would have an opportunity to discuss, as the mayor said, some options to preserve the nest that was in question. I’m also disappointed that so-called professionals would act with such great disregard for a community that they want to do business in,” Witten said.
However, Auburn resident Steven Dixon expressed some skepticism of the council’s collective outrage, referencing the June 13 Auburn Planning Commission meeting where citizens first addressed concerns over the nest.
He added that the council and city government had months to engage federal agencies and develop alternative solutions to save the nest but failed to act.
“The city of Auburn has shown in the past that it can take decisive action when it chooses to, whether it’s regulating property use or enforcing development standards, the city has demonstrated its willingness to assert authority even when those decisions have significant impacts on its residents,” Dixon said. “The council has the ultimate power and authority to make land use changes, so it’s not too late to make this right. Quit hiding behind the phrase “federal law” that only speaks of the eagles and the nest.”
City Manager Megan McGowen Crouch and city attorney Paul Clark later explained that the city is required to approve building permits if applicants meet basic requirements. Crouch said that the city also does not have the legal authority to revoke applications if developers violate federal permits and that only the federal government can intervene in those situations.
Clark added that current city ordinance does not allow the city to revoke business licenses for corporate bad acts and only allows it to revoke such licenses under limited circumstances. Existing ordinance that allows for business license revocation applies only to businesses that fail to pay taxes, houses of entertainment that violate certain health, safety and welfare laws and businesses that sell deadly weapons.
Witten then asked Clark if the council could pass a new ordinance allowing the city to revoke business licenses based on “corporate bad acts.” Clark said there was a possibility that the council could but reiterated such criteria is not part of the current business license process.
After hearing that explanation, Ward 6 Council Member Bob Parsons questioned what legally constituted a corporate bad act. Clark explained that case law has established that corporate bad acts create a nuisance to the public, but that there are no specific criteria for what has to be included in a city’s business license revocation process.
It is currently unclear if the city will pursue such a change to its business license ordinance moving forward.

The council also addressed several other items of business:

Exit mobile version