Michael Perry Dissappointment
It is devestating to see the grizzly report that only Jim McLean is behind all this, and now Michael Perry has sent out a letter city-wide claiming the whole ordinance is Jim's effort to eliminate private home rental competition. Did he say who paid for the letter? It now appears our former city manager is using his position to set himself up as a consultant and it is now obvious to me why he ignored my many emails asking when he would follow up on the fair treatment issue the council asked him to look into. I thought he was a friend. He knows how many of us there are and is willfully misrepresenting this entire issue. Its a great dissappointment. Please ask your friends (and not so friendly aquantances) to examine the ordinance and the issues and call Perry and the Real Estaters on their claims. The Mcleans didn't write this ordinance. I have updated the website to respond to his letter. It now includes a letter from Dixie Allison responding to Michael Perry, who has represented himself as a city expert on these issues. Fact is, he does know the facts:
1. The proposed ordinance does NOT eliminate private home rentals. Michael Perry knows this if he read it.
2. Jim Mclean is not alone in his feelings nor did he write this ordinance. Michael Perry has talked to dozens of people, (I'm one) over the last two years as city manager, who demanded something be done to improve the private home rental problems and unfairness. He has led many to believe he cared and was listening while in fact, he has, more than anyone, stalled ANY action to improve our situation. Who is paying him to write this letter and when did they begin working together?
3. This ordinance, if petitioned to the next ballot, would give YOU, the voters, the opportunity to judge its merits by voting for or against it. Michael Perry and those who hired him know you will likely support it if it gets on the ballot.
4. As city manager, Michael Perry hosted a workshop at the PAC in March 2004 where hundreds of disappointed home owners and lodge owners showed up to speak, along with many Private Home Rental owners and employees. Mr. Perry was unable to stop the PHR supporters from cheering their friends and booing the rest of us. During the break, many of the homeowners went home, intimidated, and never spoke again.
5. In June of 2004, I spoke (to Mr. Perry and the City Council) for a large group of unhappy homeowners and lodge owners. I was very polite and asked simply for two things: First, let the citizens vote on how they want private home rentals handled, (this request was completely ignored). Second, Treat the lodge owners the same as you treat the private home renters, regarding inspections and safety. This request was followed by a vote of the council to research the fair treatment of both parties. I emailed Michael Perry repeatedly, for the following two years and finally, after confronting him while lunching with council members, received an answer: "Nothing has been done" His recent letter explains why! If this is what we paid our city manager to do, we got ripped off.
Bob
1. The proposed ordinance does NOT eliminate private home rentals. Michael Perry knows this if he read it.
2. Jim Mclean is not alone in his feelings nor did he write this ordinance. Michael Perry has talked to dozens of people, (I'm one) over the last two years as city manager, who demanded something be done to improve the private home rental problems and unfairness. He has led many to believe he cared and was listening while in fact, he has, more than anyone, stalled ANY action to improve our situation. Who is paying him to write this letter and when did they begin working together?
3. This ordinance, if petitioned to the next ballot, would give YOU, the voters, the opportunity to judge its merits by voting for or against it. Michael Perry and those who hired him know you will likely support it if it gets on the ballot.
4. As city manager, Michael Perry hosted a workshop at the PAC in March 2004 where hundreds of disappointed home owners and lodge owners showed up to speak, along with many Private Home Rental owners and employees. Mr. Perry was unable to stop the PHR supporters from cheering their friends and booing the rest of us. During the break, many of the homeowners went home, intimidated, and never spoke again.
5. In June of 2004, I spoke (to Mr. Perry and the City Council) for a large group of unhappy homeowners and lodge owners. I was very polite and asked simply for two things: First, let the citizens vote on how they want private home rentals handled, (this request was completely ignored). Second, Treat the lodge owners the same as you treat the private home renters, regarding inspections and safety. This request was followed by a vote of the council to research the fair treatment of both parties. I emailed Michael Perry repeatedly, for the following two years and finally, after confronting him while lunching with council members, received an answer: "Nothing has been done" His recent letter explains why! If this is what we paid our city manager to do, we got ripped off.
Bob
posted by Big Bear Private Home Issues | 3:29 PM
0 Comments:
Post a Comment
Links to this post:
Create a Link
<< Home