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

[Janice Willard]

Donovan and other visionaries.

I had meant to respond to this before our invasion by trolls.  In your
message you say:
>
> I can certainly understand your concern and that you have issues with land
> owner rights.

I lurked on this list for several weeks before putting in a message and I
want to say that one of the biggest impediments to genuine communication on
this list is the willingness of some people here to label others, and then,
having decided that label (be if liberal, Christian, butcher, baker or
candlestick maker) go on to assume that the person agrees with all of the
positions of that label, lock, stock and barrel.  For example, why would one
assume that just because a person is a Republican, that they would be in
complete agreement with everything that Bush has done in his presidency?  Of
course that is silly and if you listened to the recent confirmation
hearings, you would have noticed that some very tough questions were coming
from *both* sides of the aisle, Republican and Democrat alike.

Likewise, you have assumed here that because I question whether we should
proceed with the land use ordinance in its present condition, that I have
issues with land owner rights.  In fact, many have gone so far as to paint
this issue in totally black and white terms--people with problems with the
ordinance are raging land owner rightists and people who support it are
foaming at the mouth collectivists.

Doesn't that kind if labeling really get in the way of communication?

There was nothing in any of my communications on this topic that said that I
was for or against land owner rights.  To put such words in my mouth and
then paint me with a broad paintbrush is inaccurate.  I said that the
document needed more work.  The committee has done an excellent job with
what they had to work with but they lacked a crucial element--they had been
unable to get public comment throughout the process because they were not
using effective methods of alerting the public about these meetings.  So a
crucial step was missed.

Instead of going ahead with the document in its present form, I am
recommending that they go back and get the step they missed. And in doing so
they can *also* address some of the more recent threats to the safety and
wellbeing of everyone in the county that have come up since this document
was initially drafted, that being the risk from mining and depletion of our
water resources.

In no way does that categorize me as being either for or against property
owner rights.  That is a false dichotomy that you have injected into the
discussion.

In fact, to want this ordinance to be as good as it can be could be
considered a valid expression of someone earnestly concerned with land use
planning, someone who doesn't want a poor ordinance passed because of how it
harms this process.

So please stop labeling me.  Everyone, stop labeling everyone!  Whether you
are liberal, conservative, it doesn't matter. Labeling it is just prejudice.
It causes you to "pre-judge" another person. And it really gets in the way
of understanding each other and improving our community.

JW

----- Original Message ----- 
From: "Donovan Arnold" <donovanarnold at hotmail.com>
To: <jwillard at turbonet.com>; <jeffh at moscow.com>; <vision2020 at moscow.com>
Sent: Tuesday, January 25, 2005 5:18 AM
Subject: [Spam] Re: [Vision2020] They're coming to take your land--Follow
our leaderJeffHarkins!


> 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
> > > ¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯
> >
>
>