A Cleveland law firm representing more than 20,000 Cleveland taxpayers for a referendum on public funding for renovations at the Q.
City Council approved an ordinance . The petition would require the ordinance to be voted on in a referendum.
The city denied the petition because it says it will unconstitutionally impair existing contracts.
, who is an attorney with the firm challenging the rejection of the petition, says the city鈥檚 argument does not make sense.
鈥淎ny party that did enter a contract relating to this controversial ordinance did so knowing that it was likely to be put to the test through the referendum process. It鈥檚 just, frankly, a ridiculous argument.鈥�
Pattakos claims the petitioners鈥� met all the requirements of Ohio law when they attempted to submit their petition.
