02.12.2014
FREMONT, Neb. --- They won, but they say the fight isn't over. For the second time in four years Tuesday, Fremont voters went to the ballot box to stop illegal immigrants from renting housing in their community.
Voters resoundingly rejected an attempt to strip provisions of a controversial ordinance that thrust Fremont to the forefront of the national immigration policy debate.
Final, unofficial results showed the attempt failed 60 percent to 40 percent.
"This is not final, in any regard,'' said Paul Von Behren, an organizer of Our Votes Should Count, a group that fought the amendment and won.
Von Behren predicted a redoubling of efforts by the victors to have the housing provisions enforced. The regulations have not been enforced as they were tied up in court challenges.
Von Behren also predicted new efforts to vote out City Council members who voted to send the issue back to the voters.
"There's certainly an angry mood focused on the City Council now,'' Von Behren said.
But the fallout doesn't have to be radioative, Von Behren said.
"We will gladly work with them,'' he said. "The best outcome of this is if the City Council would do what they should have done in the first place, that's sit down with us and ask how we can best work to make this ordinance good for everybody in Fremont.''
Virginia Meyer, who helped organize Fremont YES!, a group that pushed for the amendment, said voters were angry to have to return to the polls for the issue.
"I think the message that people already voted once on this issue was stronger than rational arguments about economic consequences to our town,'' she said. "They didn't want to vote again.''
Supporters of amending the ordinance said the city faced the threat of expensive court battles defending the law in possible legal challenges filed by civil rights organizations. They said taxpayers in Hazelton, Pa., and Farmers Branch, Texas, were exposed to defense costs in the millions of dollars.
They also said the housing restrictions could risk millions of dollars in future federal grant funding for Fremont.
Ron Tillery, executive director of the Fremont Area Chamber of Commerce, said the city's future is not clear.
"There's simply going to be a lot more uncertainty about what our community has to do now and the effects of the ordinance being implemented,'' he said.
The chamber supported amending the ordinance, saying it will not achieve the results intended and presented an unwarranted risk to taxpayers, divided the community and diverted attention away from constructive enterprises.
Those on both sides of the divisive issue expected a close decision.
Workers at the First Congregational Church said they saw a steady stream of voters all day at the Broad Street polling place.
Nathan Parr said he voted yes because he hopes repealing the law will allow the city to move past the issue.
"I think it's really about race," Parr said. "We need to learn to accept other people ... as a society I think we have to move past the whole thing."
Others who cast votes against repealing the housing provisions of the ordinance said the issue shouldn't have even come to the polls again after it was approved by 14 percentage points in 2010.
Angie Hancock of Fremont said she voted for the ordinance four years ago, too, and she is hopeful the law will do what it's been put in place to do.
"I'm all for the melting pot of America, but there are also laws in place to make yourself a citizen," Hancock said.
"That's what needs to be done.''
The vote came against the backdrop of a fierce national debate over immigration and a Congress that appears gridlocked on the issue.
Although the Senate passed a bipartisan immigration overhaul last summer, many House Republicans have balked at proposals that include a path to citizenship for those in the country illegally.
House Speaker John Boehner, R-Ohio, predicted last week that it would be tough to get immigration legislation done this year, in part because he said his members don't trust President Barack Obama's administration to enforce the laws.
The issue has festered in Fremont since the City Council first considered an ordinance aimed at banishing illegal immigrants from the community in 2008. Two years later, the town thrust itself to the forefront of the national immigration policy debate when a citizen petition drive put the issue on the ballot.
The matter ended up back on the ballot after the City Council once again sent the ordinance to voters in November, leading to some exasperation from voters.
"I don't know why we're here voting on the same thing again," said LaVonda Lehman, who declined to say how she voted. "Didn't we already do this once?"
The only provision of the ordinance enforced so far is one that requires businesses to use the federal E-Verify system to certify the legal status of new employees. It would not be affected if voters approve a repeal of the housing section.
The ordinance's housing provisions require a new renter to obtain a $5 permit. The ordinance also requires rental licenses for landlords.
Proponents of repealing of the housing provisions raised nearly $71,000 in cash or in-kind services. The money paid for yard signs and billboards, and print, radio and cable TV advertising.
Those who wanted to keep the ordinance relied on a grass-roots campaign largely fueled by donations of $5, $10 and $20 to produce yard signs and door hangers. They raised more than $8,000.
Voter Julie Rump said she was in the minority who opposed the ordinance in the first vote. She hoped the ordinance will be amended and that a resolution will allow the city to move on.
"Then we can get back to loving our neighbor," Rump said.
Voters resoundingly rejected an attempt to strip provisions of a controversial ordinance that thrust Fremont to the forefront of the national immigration policy debate.
Final, unofficial results showed the attempt failed 60 percent to 40 percent.
"This is not final, in any regard,'' said Paul Von Behren, an organizer of Our Votes Should Count, a group that fought the amendment and won.
Von Behren predicted a redoubling of efforts by the victors to have the housing provisions enforced. The regulations have not been enforced as they were tied up in court challenges.
Von Behren also predicted new efforts to vote out City Council members who voted to send the issue back to the voters.
"There's certainly an angry mood focused on the City Council now,'' Von Behren said.
But the fallout doesn't have to be radioative, Von Behren said.
"We will gladly work with them,'' he said. "The best outcome of this is if the City Council would do what they should have done in the first place, that's sit down with us and ask how we can best work to make this ordinance good for everybody in Fremont.''
Virginia Meyer, who helped organize Fremont YES!, a group that pushed for the amendment, said voters were angry to have to return to the polls for the issue.
"I think the message that people already voted once on this issue was stronger than rational arguments about economic consequences to our town,'' she said. "They didn't want to vote again.''
Supporters of amending the ordinance said the city faced the threat of expensive court battles defending the law in possible legal challenges filed by civil rights organizations. They said taxpayers in Hazelton, Pa., and Farmers Branch, Texas, were exposed to defense costs in the millions of dollars.
They also said the housing restrictions could risk millions of dollars in future federal grant funding for Fremont.
Ron Tillery, executive director of the Fremont Area Chamber of Commerce, said the city's future is not clear.
"There's simply going to be a lot more uncertainty about what our community has to do now and the effects of the ordinance being implemented,'' he said.
The chamber supported amending the ordinance, saying it will not achieve the results intended and presented an unwarranted risk to taxpayers, divided the community and diverted attention away from constructive enterprises.
Those on both sides of the divisive issue expected a close decision.
Workers at the First Congregational Church said they saw a steady stream of voters all day at the Broad Street polling place.
Nathan Parr said he voted yes because he hopes repealing the law will allow the city to move past the issue.
"I think it's really about race," Parr said. "We need to learn to accept other people ... as a society I think we have to move past the whole thing."
Others who cast votes against repealing the housing provisions of the ordinance said the issue shouldn't have even come to the polls again after it was approved by 14 percentage points in 2010.
Angie Hancock of Fremont said she voted for the ordinance four years ago, too, and she is hopeful the law will do what it's been put in place to do.
"I'm all for the melting pot of America, but there are also laws in place to make yourself a citizen," Hancock said.
"That's what needs to be done.''
The vote came against the backdrop of a fierce national debate over immigration and a Congress that appears gridlocked on the issue.
Although the Senate passed a bipartisan immigration overhaul last summer, many House Republicans have balked at proposals that include a path to citizenship for those in the country illegally.
House Speaker John Boehner, R-Ohio, predicted last week that it would be tough to get immigration legislation done this year, in part because he said his members don't trust President Barack Obama's administration to enforce the laws.
The issue has festered in Fremont since the City Council first considered an ordinance aimed at banishing illegal immigrants from the community in 2008. Two years later, the town thrust itself to the forefront of the national immigration policy debate when a citizen petition drive put the issue on the ballot.
The matter ended up back on the ballot after the City Council once again sent the ordinance to voters in November, leading to some exasperation from voters.
"I don't know why we're here voting on the same thing again," said LaVonda Lehman, who declined to say how she voted. "Didn't we already do this once?"
The only provision of the ordinance enforced so far is one that requires businesses to use the federal E-Verify system to certify the legal status of new employees. It would not be affected if voters approve a repeal of the housing section.
The ordinance's housing provisions require a new renter to obtain a $5 permit. The ordinance also requires rental licenses for landlords.
Proponents of repealing of the housing provisions raised nearly $71,000 in cash or in-kind services. The money paid for yard signs and billboards, and print, radio and cable TV advertising.
Those who wanted to keep the ordinance relied on a grass-roots campaign largely fueled by donations of $5, $10 and $20 to produce yard signs and door hangers. They raised more than $8,000.
Voter Julie Rump said she was in the minority who opposed the ordinance in the first vote. She hoped the ordinance will be amended and that a resolution will allow the city to move on.
"Then we can get back to loving our neighbor," Rump said.
John Wiegert, a leader of Our Votes Should Count, said the City Council should heed the election results.
"The people have spoken,'' he said. "Hopefully, they'll get the message at City Hall, finally. They need to listen to the people of Fremont.''
Tillery said the community needs to heal.
"Fremont's going to need to come together and work as community to address all of the issues that confront us, not just one issue but all the issues," he said.
Tillery said the community has work ahead.
"With a 'yes' vote we would have had a clearer path forward,'' he said.
Meyer said Fremont's future begins today.
"The sun comes up tomorrow and we'll still keep working on trying to show people from outside our community the best things about our town and make it welcoming and attractive to people,'' she said. "That's all we can do.''
"The people have spoken,'' he said. "Hopefully, they'll get the message at City Hall, finally. They need to listen to the people of Fremont.''
Tillery said the community needs to heal.
"Fremont's going to need to come together and work as community to address all of the issues that confront us, not just one issue but all the issues," he said.
Tillery said the community has work ahead.
"With a 'yes' vote we would have had a clearer path forward,'' he said.
Meyer said Fremont's future begins today.
"The sun comes up tomorrow and we'll still keep working on trying to show people from outside our community the best things about our town and make it welcoming and attractive to people,'' she said. "That's all we can do.''
No comments:
Post a Comment