|
City of Lincoln
Lincoln City Council – the nightmare continues
North Elm Street between Eighth and
Tenth will NOT be one-way
[September 24, 2026]
When the dust settled for the
umpteenth time, the final rule is that traffic flow on North Elm
Street will remain as it has always been with the exception of a
reduction in speed limit. This decision came at the Tuesday night
voting session of the Lincoln City Council after hearing a motion to
reconsider the ordinance passed on September 8th.
At the September 8th meeting, four alderpersons voted in favor of
keeping the one-way and four voting in opposition. Mayor Tracy Welch
was left to place the deciding vote, and he voted to keep the
one-way in place along with a reduction in speed limit.
This week, Welch read the motion, then explained how the motion to
reconsider the vote is justified. There is a procedure where that
when a member of the council, who voted on the “prevailing side” (in
this case, in favor of one-way) can ask for a motion to reconsider.
Welch said that had occurred and therefore, the city had to hear the
motion and place a new vote.
Alderman Stan Anderson spoke up and said that he was the one who had
asked for the reconsideration because, he had voted the opposite of
what he intended to vote. Had he voted correctly, there would have
been no tie, and the final ruling would have been to drop the
one-way by a majority vote of 5-3.
Anderson said there had been
confusion on the vote on his part. He had talked to other aldermen
and members of the community, and his final decision had been to
take away the one-way stipulation as well as stops signs but
maintain the reduction in speed. However, when it came time to vote,
The NO vote would keep the one-way and the YES vote would drop it.
He thought that NO had meant no one-way.
Anderson went on to say that the city departments had procedures in
place to address stop signs, and those rules should be followed. He
said that North Elm had been two-way traffic for decades with no
serious concerns, and he saw no reason to change it now.
[to top of second column] |
The only other
discussion on the topic came from Tim Becke who asked why this
was being considered. He said that in previous weeks, he had
placed a vote that he immediately realized was not what he
really wanted. He had said so in the meeting and was told that
the vote was done and he couldn’t do it over. Now, he sees that
there is a means by which he could have done it over. Welch said
not necessarily. The rule is precise in stating that the person
requesting the reconsideration of vote has to be on the
“prevailing side” of the vote. In other words, that person voted
in favor of something they did not want and the vote carried.
The vote to which
Becke was referring had been taken on August 5th, and he was one of
two aldermen voting against the motion, therefore, not on the
prevailing side of the vote.
Welch did comment that the city, years ago, had discussed Roberts’
Rules of Order and had decided that it did not want to adopt those
rules as guidance for the city. However, this exception was being
made according to those rules, so it appears the city is indeed
using them as guidelines.
There was a clarification of the vote to be taken. For this specific
motion a YES vote would eliminate the one-way street but keep the
speed reduction. A NO vote would result in the street remaining
one-way.
Aldermen Stand Anderson, Kevin Bateman, Dennis Clemmons, Sam Downs,
Rhonda O’Donohue, and Steve Parrot voted YES. Alderman Tim Becke
voted NO.
In the original vote taken September 8th, Anderson, Becke, McClallen
and O’Donohue voted to keep the one-way. In the motion to reconsider
taken this week, both Anderson and O’Donohue changed their vote, and
McClallen was absent for the evening.
[Nila Smith]
|
