[Vision2020] They're coming to take your land--Follow our leader Jeff Harkins!

[Donovan Arnold]

Mr. Harkins,

I find it really distasteful that you are attempting to falsely scare people 
and get them to follow you.

First, it is obvious to anyone that is literate that there is nothing 
objectionable or new in this set of ordinances that doesn't already exist in 
current law. People are not coming to take their land away, or restrict 
their land use anymore than it is already as you are purposing they are.

Second, it is clear, to anyone that has worked on codification, laws, or 
legal documents that you don't have clue as to what you are doing, or 
talking about. A few examples;

"For each standard and regulation, the proposed ordinance should
>provide a clear and unambiguous statement as to the reason for the standard 
>or regulation."

If you knew the first thing about law, you would know that you don't, nor 
should we, write the explanation(s) of why the law exists in the law itself. 
This is for numerous reasons, including the fact that you could have over 
100 reasons why something should be illegal. Second, it makes the law really 
hard to find and increases the document size ten fold. Finally, not everyone 
will agree with all of the reasons as to why it should be a law.  If you 
want to know the explanation of something, you either read the statement of 
intent in the bill, or ask the author(s) of the bill; assuming the reason(s) 
for such legislation is not self-evident.

Another example of your obvious lack of legal knowledge is;

"Further, the fine structure is set at $300 per day
>for each day that a "violator" is out of compliance with a standard or 
>regulation.  This seems a rather high fine and suggests that the county is 
>anticipating substantial costs of enforcement."

Wrong, the fine is a MAXIMUM of $300 per offense, per day. A $300 fine for 
such things as animal cruelty, or dumping some waste into a river or stream 
is a light fine by most standards. This is not a fine that would be common. 
It would be used only in the most extreme of violations and ones in which 
someone she/he is found guilty or pleads guilty. Someone can always appeal 
their case. The University of Idaho has the authority to fine more than this 
amount. It is not extreme.

Finally, you want an extension of the time to revenues the legislation. To 
what purpose? First, unless you are on the board, you don't have a vote. 
Second, there is nothing new in the legislation that is debatable or 
changeable. Finally, seven years is plenty long enough.

Mr. Harkins, it clear you are just trying to get people psyched up about 
something that isn't there. You are trying to convince them that the local 
government is drastically changing the law and are gearing up to take their 
rights away. This is utterly false, and you know it!

People are now reading just parts of this legislation and are just getting 
confused because they don't have someone to explain the entire thing to 
them.

I repeat to everyone else on this list, if you have a question or concern 
about the ordinance, please direct it to a lawyer, an administrator, or a 
member of the board. All of them understand and comprehend this ordinance 
with greater understanding and precision than Mr. Harkins who is simply 
trying to create a following so he can run for County Commissioner for the 
third time.

Take care,

Donovan J Arnold