So that my fellow Republicans understand what they are saying, the existing demolition delay ordinance states that any property over 50 years is subject to a possible delay. So if they are against 50 years, they are against the existing 90 days demolition delay ordinance too.
The rest of the the issues cited, in todays papers about the “veto” of the recently passed demolition delay ordinance, can be debated and discussed ad infinitum. They are philosophical ones, either you are in favor of providing a delay mechanism for historic structures or you’re not. It appears that the arguments offered by Moccia indicate that he is not.
