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

[Donovan Arnold]

Janice,

I can certainly understand your concern and that you have issues with land 
owner rights. And in no way do I think that people should not be allowed to 
participate in THEIR government. However, I must point out some of the 
misunderstandings that I believe that you and many other residents have 
about the process of government and how the law works.

First, you are correct that the Board has made some mistakes with this 
document and in its presentation of it to the people. It made the mistake of 
just handing a document that is 82 pages of legal terminology and 
codification, and said read this. Of course when you hand a document to 
12,000 people that is 82 pages long you are going to have complaints. This 
is their error. What they should have done was right a 10 page document 
explaining what was different in these ordinances, which are new and which 
are old laws.

Second, the measure of if the law is well written or not, or meets the needs 
of the people, is not how many people complain, it is the commonality and 
validity of the complaints. 100 people complaining about 100 different 
things in an 82 page document is normal and not a sign of bad law. A 
document where 100 people all agreed would be a blank document. Where 
concern should be shown is if 100 people are making the same complaint after 
it has been accurately explained.

Third, most of the complaints that I have heard fall into five categories.

1) They complain about a law they don't understand, or misread. Such as 
definitions of words, which are defined elsewhere in the document from the 
regulation they are concerned with and don’t know where to find that 
definition.

2) They are complaining about already existing laws. They think the solid 
waste laws, animal regulation laws, and tower regulations are new laws being 
enacted. They are not NEW laws, they are old ones. They don't understand 
that this is already law and all they are doing is recodification, or in 
laymen’s terms, rearranging the furniture, not buying new ones.

3) They complain about the ambiguity of the law, or that it leaves open of 
the interpretation of the law. Well, all laws have a certain level of 
ambiguity and leave the interpretation of the law to those that enforce 
them. When the definition of  what “is” is is litigated if doesn’t matter 
how unambiguous the law gets, there is always room for interpretation. It is 
a good thing because it is more often than not it is the sheriff that 
enforces these laws who is elected. You don't want to tie the sheriff's 
hands with strict regulations that they MUST enforce. If the Sheriff abuses 
the power, you can remove them from office.

4) They complain about matters of state and federal law that cannot be 
changed. They don't want state and federal laws to be applied to their land. 
Unfortunately, there is nothing that the board can do about this. They can 
take it out of the document in some cases, but the law is still valid and it 
is better that they be aware of the law than be fined unexpectedly for 
something they didn't realize was illegal to do.

5) They want to completely redefine the writing and definition of law. Such 
as they want laws to be written in a matter that is structured against Idaho 
State Code or to include explanations of why a law is a law. You do not, nor 
can you legally write, a law with the reason of why the law is law in the 
law.

Outside of these five reasons, these complaints amount to very little than 
some people spooked by their own imaginations of a faceless bureaucrat 
enforcing erroneous interpretations of the law. I would agree the law is bad 
if you can demonstrate one of five things.

1) If the law contradicts itself

2) Adds completely new laws that don't currently exist in Federal, State, or 
County laws.

3) Has spelling or grammatical errors

4) Contradicts State or Federal Law

5) Discriminates against one specific group based on race, gender, culture, 
religion, sexual orientation, family status, or disability.

All I have seen is a bunch of people that have been made aware of all the 
current laws and all of them having questions about it and finding laws that 
they don't like. We all have laws we don't like. I am willing to bet that we 
each would like to eliminate one law or another.

I am willing to bet that if they we were to break up the Ordinances into ten 
separate sections and put them to a vote, every one of them would pass. But 
when you put a huge document together every one finds something they don't 
like about it. This is only natural.

Janice, I challenge you to find me one law, just one in the 82 document, 
that doesn't fit in one of the above 5 reasons I said they complain about, 
that just seven people agree it is a bad law. This ought to be an easy task 
in such a large document with so many people that dislike.

Thanks and take care,

Donovan J Arnold



>From: "Janice Willard" <jwillard at turbonet.com>
>To: "Donovan Arnold" 
><donovanarnold at hotmail.com>,<jeffh at moscow.com>,<vision2020 at moscow.com>
>Subject: Re: [Vision2020] They're coming to take your land--Follow our 
>leaderJeff Harkins!
>Date: Mon, 24 Jan 2005 13:14:05 -0800
>
>Mr. Arnold and other visionaries,
>
>I don't think that this is really true, as you suggest, that Mr. Harkins is
>being unnecessarily alarmist.
>
>There was tremendous turnout at the last planning and zoning meeting
>precisely because there were problems with the document. Citizens did
>exactly what citizens should do in a democratic country, they became part 
>of
>the process and expressed their concerns.  As one of the members of the
>committee put it (and I don't have an exact quote here) this ordinance is
>for the citizens of this county and they should have a part in drafting it,
>not some set of rules imposed by bureaucrats.  Citizens of this county 
>drove
>from all the distant points of the county to express their concerns with
>this document as it now stands.
>
>Unfortunately, because the committee has been relying on an archaic
>communication system to alert people about the meetings, they did not get
>the public comment from citizens that they needed to draft this into an
>unambiguous and workable document in the past few years as they were 
>working
>on it.  They held meetings up in Potlatch, out in Kendrick, but people
>didn't know about the meetings and didn't come and so did not provide them
>with the critical feedback they needed to craft this into a workable
>document.  The committee has done a conscientious job and have done the 
>best
>they could, but they were lacking the input they needed from the citizens 
>to
>do this right.
>
>Last week it was apparent that citizens of this county had a lot of 
>problems
>with many provisions of this document and that there was considerable
>confusion due to ambiguous language.
>
>I think that it is highly foolish to go ahead with this document as it
>stands today.  Everyone needs to go back a step.  The committee needs to go
>back to the communities, this time with considerably more advanced
>advertising so that the people who have the knowledge and the experience 
>get
>the information that the meetings are going to be held and can provide the
>committee with the much needed feedback to mold this into a workable
>document.
>
>To go ahead with the document at this time would be disastrous.  All those
>people who have problems with this document (and only a portion of them
>drove in from all around the county, I am sure that there are more who feel
>as they do since there was a lot of similarity in their concerns) would 
>feel
>disenfranchised and angry.  And the ambiguities that they pointed out would
>cause problems for years to come.
>
>I don't know who is in charge of deciding these things but this document is
>"Not Ready*!  To proceed with it at this time is not a good plan.  I don't
>know how this works legislatively, but someone in county government with
>both brains and foresight (i.e. leadership) needs to sent this document 
>back
>to committee and back to the people for more work.
>
>You raised the issue of Mr. Harkin's political leanings in this and
>suggested this was a reason for his position.  But I can tell you that I
>have dead opposite political leanings than Mr. Harkins.  This is not about
>politics, this is about having a county ordinance that works for the people
>of the county.   This one doesn't.  It needs more work to get there.
>Passing it in its present form, or even with a few minor adjustments, will
>not solve the problems.  More time and better communication will.  We need
>to go back to the people.  That is what democratic government is all about.
>I do hope that there are wise heads *somewhere* in authority who see the
>wisdom of pausing, going back, bringing in the public with all their
>experience and knowledge, and getting this right.
>
>JW
>
>----- Original Message -----
>From: "Donovan Arnold" <donovanarnold at hotmail.com>
>To: <jeffh at moscow.com>; <vision2020 at moscow.com>
>Sent: Sunday, January 23, 2005 11:42 PM
>Subject: [Vision2020] They're coming to take your land--Follow our
>leaderJeff Harkins!
>
>
> > 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
> >
> >
> > _____________________________________________________
> >  List services made available by First Step Internet,
> >  serving the communities of the Palouse since 1994.
> >                http://www.fsr.net
> >           mailto:Vision2020 at moscow.com
> > ¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯
>