Holiday Inn Norman loses its flag, now "Hotel Norman"

[FighttheGoodFight]

I asked our city council about this. I guess the fence went up because it has structural issues (you can see it leaning a bit). They said they aren't allowed to fine the owners any after HB2620 got passed a while ago that doesn't allow cities to fine abandoned properties if they are secure.

So they have a permit open for work. They sure don't look like they are working on it at all. Thing needs to be torn down.

[Video Expert]

I asked our city council about this. I guess the fence went up because it has structural issues (you can see it leaning a bit). They said they aren't allowed to fine the owners any after HB2620 got passed a while ago that doesn't allow cities to fine abandoned properties if they are secure.

So they have a permit open for work. They sure don't look like they are working on it at all. Thing needs to be torn down.

Precisely. I feel bad for the owner but at this point, you have to make a decision (or be forced to by the City) to either tear down and rebuild or sell to someone else who will. Based on the size and the location, the property value itself will at least offset some of their losses. But we can't just continue to allow a structurally unsound abandoned six story building surrounded by a fence to sit there crumbling for the foreseeable future.

[Dob Hooligan]

Precisely. I feel bad for the owner but at this point, you have to make a decision (or be forced to by the City) to either tear down and rebuild or sell to someone else who will. Based on the size and the location, the property value itself will at least offset some of their losses. But we can't just continue to allow a structurally unsound abandoned six story building surrounded by a fence to sit there crumbling for the foreseeable future.

From what I am reading here the city is doing all it is legally allowed to do.

This is not a smart aleck question, but do you have direct knowledge of what the city is allowed to do that is not currently being done?

[dford2]

From what I am reading here the city is doing all it is legally allowed to do.

This is not a smart aleck question, but do you have direct knowledge of what the city is allowed to do that is not currently being done?

The City has the authority to start the condemnation procedure!

[Dob Hooligan]

The City has the authority to start the condemnation procedure!

I read comment #42 to suggest the city does not have that authority because state law has been changed.

[DowntownMan]

Someone who lives in norman should tweet the mayor and ask. She does spend a lot of time on Twitter so maybe we could get a response

[Video Expert]

From what I am reading here the city is doing all it is legally allowed to do.

This is not a smart aleck question, but do you have direct knowledge of what the city is allowed to do that is not currently being done?

Appreciate that. I do not know exactly the full extent of what they can do from a legal perspective to be totally honest, but I think it is something that they should be focusing more of their efforts on publically in order to pressure the owner to resolve as soon as possible.

Take their Mask Mandate for example. They don't have the authority to actually enforce it, but they have spent a lot of time and effort through social media and other outlets to publicize it and to encourage compliance. I may be mistaken, but I have not seen or heard any public remarks from Mayor Clark or anyone on the Council about this issue. If they have, it certainly hasn't made headlines.

[Jersey Boss]

Appreciate that. I do not know exactly the full extent of what they can do from a legal perspective to be totally honest, but I think it is something that they should be focusing more of their efforts on publically in order to pressure the owner to resolve as soon as possible.

Take their Mask Mandate for example. They don't have the authority to actually enforce it, but they have spent a lot of time and effort through social media and other outlets to publicize it and to encourage compliance. I may be mistaken, but I have not seen or heard any public remarks from Mayor Clark or anyone on the Council about this issue. If they have, it certainly hasn't made headlines.

The bolded part of your post is false.

[Midtowner]

The bolded part of your post is false.

Jacobson v. Massachusetts.

[Video Expert]

The bolded part of your post is false.

Jacobson v. Massachusetts.

Sorry guys, but you've entered my wheelhouse now. The bolded part is NOT False at all.

If you actually read the Majority Opinion, the 1905 SCOTUS decision you reference (Jacobson v. Massachusetts) was a 10th Amendment (States Rights) and a 14th Amendment (Due Process) case based on enforcing an existing Massachusetts State Statute mandating vaccinations (due to Smallpox at that time) and a particular local government (City of Cambridge) attempting to enforce that law within its boundaries. What it was not based on, was a temporary or indefinite Ordinance or Proclamation passed solely by a Local/Municipal Government or Council without the "Supreme Authority" and/or "Lawful Backing" of the State in which the Municipality is located. The key wording in the decision was this..."States have the authority to enact reasonable legislative regulations to protect public health and safety which the Massachusetts statute sought to achieve."

The State of Oklahoma never passed a compulsatory Mask Mandate Law of any kind at any time during the COVID19 Pandemic that the City of Norman was trying to enforce within its boundaries. The City of Norman is not a State...it lies inside the State of Oklahoma. As a result and absent an Oklahoma State Law as the precursor, Jacobson v. Massachusetts isn't applicable in this case.

[jedicurt]

Sorry guys, but you've entered my wheelhouse now. The bolded part is NOT False at all.

If you actually read the Majority Opinion, the 1905 SCOTUS decision you reference (Jacobson v. Massachusetts) was a 10th Amendment (States Rights) and a 14th Amendment (Due Process) case based on enforcing an existing Massachusetts State Statute mandating vaccinations (due to Smallpox at that time) and a particular local government (City of Cambridge) attempting to enforce that law within its boundaries. What it was not based on, was a temporary or indefinite Ordinance or Proclamation passed solely by a Local/Municipal Government or Council without the "Supreme Authority" and/or "Lawful Backing" of the State in which the Municipality is located. The key wording in the decision was this..."States have the authority to enact reasonable legislative regulations to protect public health and safety which the Massachusetts statute sought to achieve."

The State of Oklahoma never passed a compulsatory Mask Mandate Law of any kind at any time during the COVID19 Pandemic that the City of Norman was trying to enforce within its boundaries. The City of Norman is not a State...it lies inside the State of Oklahoma. As a result and absent an Oklahoma State Law as the precursor, Jacobson v. Massachusetts isn't applicable in this case.

but they didn't need to... even in the case of Jacobson V Massachusetts... they state of Massachusetts did not pass law that required vaccinations... it passed a law that stated
Revised Laws of the Commonwealth, c. 75, § 137

the board of health of a city or town if, in its opinion, it is necessary for the public health or safety shall require and enforce the vaccination and revaccination of all the inhabitants thereof and shall provide them with the means of free vaccination. Whoever, being over twenty-one years of age and not under guardianship, refuses or neglects to comply with such requirement shall forfeit five dollars

and then it was the City of Cambridge that passed an ordnance requiring said vaccinations based upon it's opinion. that was the ruling of the court. if a State in it's 10th amendment reserved powers, mandated, or gave the ability to mandate.

now lets look at Mask Mandates.

in March 2020, the Oklahoma Legislature granted Gov. Kevin Stitt emergency powers to set Covid policy for the State. then, with this power granted him (and affirmed as a power that they had to be able to give him via Jacobson V Massachusetts, like you agreed with above), he then established a policy that while no State wide mandate would be issued, individual Cities could enact such mandates if, in those cities opinions, they deemed it necessary. So except for the part of giving a Governor Emergency powers to set the policy. The Supreme Court affirmed that the State has the ability to set that policy legislatively, in this case the legislature passed off through an also upheld legal precedent to our Governor, who then established a policy that allowed cities to enact these mandates. And since that policy was in place, much like the statue was in place in Massachusetts, that allowed for a city to enact it, per Jacobson v Massachusetts Majority Opinion, the City does have a right to then follow said policy and enact it at a municipal level.

So yes, Jacobson V. Massachusetts in this case does show the Supreme Court stating that Cities in Oklahoma could enact and Enforce Mask Mandates.