Weather by

View Full Forecast

Login | Register

facebook Icon rss Icon twitter Icon

Letter: City attorney opinion questionable

6 Comments | Leave a Comment

While I really do not have a dog in the hunt on the “three-unrelated” rule, I do have a dog in the hunt on the inappropriate comments made by small-minded people in this town and reported and opined by The Daily Reflector on one councilman’s character.

It is clear that somebody has not done their homework on the issue of Councilman Max Joyner having one “excess” renter in his restored building on 14th Street, located in a commercial zone. My “fact check” included one click of the mouse which opened an official city web page prepared by the City Planning Department. Joyner’s property, zoned commercial, is not in one of the zoning districts which the city web page listed as subject to the “three-unrelated” renters rule. Makes sense; this is a residential issue, not a commercial area issue.

In addition, another click of the mouse denotes the city code that states that in addition to certain commercial uses in this zone, high density housing is “encouraged” to lessen the transition from residential to commercial. Makes sense and it is exactly what Joyner was doing.

For the complete article, please pick up a copy of The Daily Reflector. Current home delivery and electronic edition subscribers may log in to access this article at no charge. To become a subscriber, please click here or contact Customer Service at (252) 329-9505.


Would Mr. Jack1919 care to wager?

I agree that we disagree. The real issue is whether Mr. Joyner and his supporting cast of council members are trying to fire or force the resignation of the City Attorney. I believe that effort is already in play supported by your editorial letter. I am willing to wager ten-to-one odds (limit of one dollar) with Mr. Jack1919 that the City Attorney will have resigned or been fired in the next 90 days. You put up a dime and I put up a dollar. How can you lose since I suspect you already know the answer to the wager? My point is that Mr. Joyner and his supporting cast appear to detest any city official who is professional and open in his or her public service. Which city official will be the next to be forced out or resign?

Hugh, the world does not speak "lawyer"

Why would anybody waste their time complaining to a bunch of unethical lawyers about the unethical behavior of one of their own? Remember this is the same oversight outfit that said that Easley after committing a felony, can get his law license back AS A FELON!! You may have time to waste on such nonsense legal paperwork, I don't. I think the issue was answered when Holec now tries to disclaim responsibity for the action by calling the paper and saying he did not "instruct" the staff to modify the web page. Covering his behind for something that was clearly an unethical act.

How to file an attorney Bar complaint.

See: http://www.ncbar.gov/public/filing.asp . Mr. Jack1919 owes it to the public to report unethical conduct by our City Attorney even if most of us believe our City Attorney acted with extraordinary professionalism and experienced legal wisdom.

oh' small mind, hugh

lets not be confused with the facts, just spout your bias your reasoning is beyond logic "because any inquiry about ethics might lead back to Mr. Joyner's doorstep." How does that make any sense? Mr. Joyner is not a lawyer- thank god!! Listen Hugh, if you hate Joyner that much, say it like a man, instead of wimping thru this 3 unrelated rule nonsence- what did he do steal your girl?

Character assassination? Pathetic?

One of the Daily Reflector's proudest moments supporting a free press was publication of the September 6, 2012, article about Council Member Max Joyner's rental to four unrelated persons in a residential home on 14th Street. Mr. Boardman as the most loyal of Mr. Joyner's supporters appears to have a dog in this hunt. Anyone who says he does not have a dog in this hunt usually has a dog in the hunt. As we can all see, the "hunt" is to remove the City Attorney so that Mr. Joyner and his three council members supporting cast can bypass the City Manager and run the city themselves. If Mr. Boardman or Mr. Joyner actually believed that City Attorney Holec was "wrong and unethical", either could report him to the North Carolina Bar with a formal complaint. That will not happen, of course, because any inquiry about ethics might lead back to Mr. Joyner's doorstep. Some of us appreciate the moral courage and ethical commitment of our City Attorney.


When I owned a home near the ECU campus, the covenant on the property from 1940 included a 3-unrelated rule. Before that rule was written into the City Code, a house nearby was purchased and rented out to four or five medical students. A neighbor promptly filed a complaint and the City enforced the covenant. I presume that covenants are still enforceable, except for rules that are barred by Federal law (e.g. I could only sell my house to a Caucasian Christian according to the 1940 covenant). Many of the homes in the university area will have covenant restrictions, but I would bet very few owners have gone to the courthouse to read their covenants.

Add comment

Login or register to post comments


Bless your heart
Bless your heart