|
The
<br />enclosed
<br />commerce
<br />
<br /> We must abide by the regulations of
<br />carriers engaged in interstate traffic,
<br />operate.
<br />
<br /> We respectfully request that the entire section regarding the divulgence of information
<br />pertaining to the shipper be removed from this ordinance.
<br />
<br /> It is my understanding that the circumstances preceding the adoption of this ordinance
<br />would better be satisfied by the proper indentification of the equipment which is performing
<br />the move. And, in this light, per~ap~ our Sou~h Hampton Roads Movers Association might per-
<br />form some useful function for the ~ty-of~_ge~t~mOu~h by assisting them in making a workable
<br />O~'anc-epertaining to the movement of household goods.
<br />
<br /> We urge you to consider our request, and not adopt this ordinance in its present
<br />If we can be of further assistance to you or to the Council of the City of Portsmouth,
<br />ready to assist you at every turn."
<br />
<br /> March 14, 1972
<br />
<br />proposed section 19-84 requires us to divulge information which, as you can see by t~e
<br />letter, is unlawful for a motor carrier or broker engaged in interstate or foreign
<br />to divulge.
<br />
<br /> the Interstate Commerce Act, because, as motor
<br /> if we do not, we could be deprived of our license to
<br />
<br />form.
<br />we staid
<br />
<br /> The following attachment was read:
<br />
<br /> "In reply to your question pertaining to the proposed Norfolk City Ordinance which would
<br />require movers to notify the Police Dep~tment of persons vacating a residence in the city
<br />of Norfolk, Section 222(e) of the Interstate Commerce Act is as follows:
<br />
<br /> ( )e It shall be unlawful for any motor carrier or broker engaged in interstateo ,°r . I
<br />foreign commerce or any officer, receiver, trustee, lessee, agent, or employee of SUCh carrme~,
<br />broker, or person, or for any other person authorized by such carrier, broker, or person to ~
<br />receive information, knowlin~ly to disclose to, or permit to be a~cquired by any perso~n Other ~
<br />than the shipper or consignee without the consent of such shipper or consignee, any ~-nform- ~
<br />ation concerning the nature, kind, quantity, destination, consignee, or routing of any prop-
<br />erty tendered or delivered to such motor carrier or broker for such transportation, which
<br />information may be used to the detriment or prejudice of such sIaipper or consignee, or which
<br />may improperly disclose his business transactions to a competitor; and it shall also be unlaw-
<br />ful for any person to solicit or knowingly receive any such information which may be so used.
<br />Signed - Household Goods Carriers' Bureau, F. L. Wyche, Exe.cutive Secretary"
<br />
<br />~ On motion Of Mr. ff~.hnson and sec(Snded by Mr. Raymond Smith, the ordinance was placed
<br />before Council for vote.
<br />
<br /> Mr. King offered a substitute motion that action on the ordinance in question be tabled
<br />until a meeting with the South Hampton Roads Movers Association could be arranged and a
<br />clarification of the questionable areas produce clarification.
<br />
<br /> Mr. [rvine Smith made an amendment to the substitute motion that licensed movers have
<br />made available to them a pad of blank moving reports.
<br />
<br /> Mr. King offered an amendment that was seconded by Mr. Johnson, the ordinance be changed
<br />(Sec. 19-84) . . . shall not less than twenty-four hours prior . be replaced by "shall
<br />prior to any such moving", and the substitute motion as amended pa~s~d by the following vote:
<br />
<br /> AMes: Holley, Johnson, King, Irvine Smith, Raymond Smith, Turner, Barnes
<br /> Nays: None
<br />
<br />72-52~- TAb following ordinance, approved at last meeting, was taken up and read:
<br />
<br />"AN ORDINANCE TO APPROPRIATE $325,000.00 FROM THE GENERAL CAPITAL IMPROVEMENT
<br />FUND FOR THE PARK VIEW CONSERVATIDN PROJECT VA. R-48."
<br />
<br /> On motion of Mr. Turner, seconded by Mr. Raymond Smith, the ordinance was adopted, and
<br />by the following vote:
<br />
<br />Ayes: Holley, Johnson, King, [rvine Smith, Raymond Smith, Turner, Barnes
<br />Nays: None
<br />
<br />72-53 The following ordinance, approved at last meeting, was taken up and read:
<br />
<br />'AN ORDINANCE TO AMEND THE CODE OF THE CITY OF PORTSMOUTH, VIRGINIA, 1961, BY
<br />REPEALING SECTIONS 10-128 THROUGH 10~131, THEREOF; AND BY AMENDING SECTIONS
<br />10-117 THROUGH 10-120 AND ADDING A NEW SECTION 10-12~.t PERTAINING TO CREATION
<br />OF THE PORTSMOUTH MUNICIPAL FINANCE COMMISSION."
<br />
<br /> On motion of Mr. Raymond Smith, seconded by Mr. King, the ordinance was adopted, and
<br />by the following vote:
<br />
<br />Ayes: Holley, Johnson, King, Irvine Smith, Raymond Smith, Turmer, Barnes
<br />Nays: None
<br />
<br />
<br />
|