City Beat: Council approves controversial SOGI bill

Though there was no consensus among Springfield City Council members, a solid majority last week voted to approve a controversial extension of the city’s nondiscrimination ordinance.

With another overflow crowd at City Hall as the backdrop, council voted Oct. 13 to add protections based on sexual orientation and gender identity in the areas of housing, employment and public accommodations. Previously, the ordinance prohibited discrimination on the basis of race, color, creed, religion, national origin, ancestry, sex, age (40 to 69 years old) or disability.

Six council members voted in favor of the further reaching of two options, while three cast votes of opposition. A substitute ordinance, which would have broadened the city’s protections only in the area of housing, automatically failed with the passage of the original bill.

Council members Doug Burlison, Mike Carroll, Craig Hosmer, Jeff Seifried, Jan Fisk and Cindy Rushefsky voted for the original measure after defeating a motion by Councilman Craig Fishel to vote for the substitute bill. Fishel, Councilman Jerry Compton and Mayor Bob Stephens voted against the original bill, though Stephens said before the vote he hoped to weigh in on the substitute proposal.

In late August 2012, council moved to table the SOGI ordinance in favor of creating a resident-led task force to review the issue after a largely divided community turned out in force during the bill’s first public hearing. The 16-member task force ultimately favored the substitute proposal.  

Two years ago, 500 people attended the first public hearing on the SOGI initiative, where 37 of 62 public speakers voiced support for extending the city’s nondiscrimination ordinance. That meeting spawned a viral video of Brentwood Christian Church Pastor Phil Snider’s council speech, which now has drawn more than 4.5 million views on YouTube. At the Sept. 8 public hearing, overflow rooms were filled to the brink and some attendees listened to proceedings from outside, as 24 of 45 speakers spoke in support of one of the two SOGI ordinances.

Burlison said he had family and friends on both sides of the issue, but the passionate nature of the public debate swayed his vote.

“The amount of opposition to this bill … is a clear indication of the need for this bill,” Burlison said.

Fisk said the bill was a chance to show employers and others beyond Springfield that the city is an inclusive community.

“In order to grow and maintain a healthy economy, Springfield needs to be a welcoming city,” Fisk said. “We cannot build Springfield’s future by holding on to discrimination of the past.”

Before voting against the bill, Compton said the ordinance overstepped the role of city government.

“The First Amendment to the Constitution says Congress should make no laws about the establishment of religion or prohibit the free exercise thereof. People of faith live out their beliefs in their everyday lives just as surely as people with alternative lifestyles believe that is who they are,” Compton said, adding he felt there were inadequate safeguards to protect against wrongful use of the proposed ordinance.

Fishel said he voted against the ordinance because he felt it best represented the interest of residents in his southeast Springfield district.

“I have been approached by every major church in my district. I feel like I was elected to represent the people of my district, Zone 4, so I don’t feel like I can support this issue,” Fishel said.  

Rushefsky said voting for the SOGI bill amounted to supporting fairness in the public sphere. She described the ordinance change as unenforceable but symbolically important.

The bill gives the city no power to punish businesses or property owners for claims of discrimination, but individual instances can be logged with the Mayor’s Commission on Human Rights.

“This bill is not really about homosexuality, gender identity or religious freedom. It is about the right of every citizen of Springfield to be treated like every other citizen of Springfield,” Rushefsky said. “There is nothing in this bill that compels anyone to change his religious beliefs or to approve or sanction homosexual behavior. The Constitution is a shield designed to protect us from overreaching government and from each other. It is not a sword to strike out at those who do not share our beliefs and customs.”

Rezoning requests
Developer Curtis Jared of Jared Enterprises will wait until Oct. 27 to get council’s decision on his rezoning request of 90 acres behind James River Commons. The proposal was amended after debate at the Oct. 13 meeting.

With approval, Jared would create an office and general retail district to shop to potential tenants, and nearby residents have opposed street connections to their neighborhoods.

At the next meeting, the public can weigh in on an amendment to remove street extensions into the Wellington Hills neighborhood and to provide for only firefighter access into the Quail Creek subdivision at West Buena Vista Street. City planners want to eventually connect Campbell Avenue and Kansas Avenue via Buena Vista, but neighbors are worried about traffic from James River Commons filtering through their subdivision. Jared has said he only proposed the connector road as a way to satisfy planning staff. At the Sept. 22 public hearing, the bill was tabled to develop a compromise. On Oct. 13, however, Rushefsky’s proposed amendment was challenged by Councilman Seifried, who wants the road open to the public once development on the west end of Quail Creek can extend Buena Vista to Kansas Avenue. Ultimately, Seifried’s amendment won out with a 6-3 vote. Rushefsky, Hosmer and Fishel stood opposed, having favored Rushefsky’s failed amendment.

In other zoning action, apartment developer Joe Carmichael received a unanimous vote for a proposed rezoning to develop a 55-unit complex at the northwest corner of Pythian Street and Cedarbrook Avenue.

At a Sept. 22 public hearing, four residents of the Glenwood Village neighborhood, which sits southwest and downhill of the intersection, said the development would only exacerbate stormwater drainage problems around their homes. In accordance with city codes, plans for Carmichael’s proposed apartments include a drainage basin, which is designed to mitigate additional stormwater runoff.[[In-content Ad]]