[Vision2020] RE: Letter to Paul Kimmel

[Mark Seman]

Wayne,
It will take me many years, but I will continue to try to understand
planning and zoning as I work to find the answers to (what I percieve as)
Moscow's problems.  I'm fine with being out of synch with a final authority,
I think it (& me) needs to be questioned periodically.

I am curious as to your views of how (or if) current zoning ordinances could
be improved.  Especially as a past and intimate participant in P&Z, your
views would be a great help for me to hear to get a broader understanding.

What in its nature requires P&Z to be technical and rule driven?  I
understand the need to protect peoples' rights, but what makes strict
quantitative evaluation better than a qualitative one.  It is easier to find
justification qualitatively, but I don't see it as the only appropriate
methodology.

Mark

Mark Seman, Architect
Heather Seman, Landscape Architect
1404 East 'F' Street  Moscow, Idaho 83843
v 208-883-3276 / f 208-883-0112

  -----Original Message-----
  From: vision2020-bounces at moscow.com
[mailto:vision2020-bounces at moscow.com]On Behalf Of Art Deco
  Sent: Friday, May 20, 2005 3:07 PM
  To: Vision 2020
  Subject: Re: [Vision2020] RE: Letter to Paul Kimmel


  Mark,

  I understand what you are saying.  However, planning and zoning is a very,
technical, rule driven enterprise by its very nature.  Your point of view
for many reasons is out of sync with the final authority in this and similar
cases, the courts and the massive body of case law now extant.  Simplifying,
your viewpoint is called "The Rule of Man."  Zoning operates under "The Rule
of Law."

  I humbly suggest that if you continue to be a member of the Moscow Board
of Adjustment that you take the time and effort to study and to fully
understand the current processes, practices, and legal entrapments of
planning and zoning.

  It is not that communities cannot be positively structured in certain
ways, but how legally that is to be done to attempt to construct what is
best for the community and at the same time protecting the citizens' right
to due process, equal protection, and other rights.

  Art Deco (Wayne A. Fox)
  deco at moscow.com

    ----- Original Message -----
    From: Mark Seman
    To: DonaldH675 at aol.com
    Cc: Vision2020
    Sent: Friday, May 20, 2005 12:41 PM
    Subject: [Vision2020] RE: Letter to Paul Kimmel


    Rose,
    I interpret the Code as trying to be a tool for community development;
it allows what is positive and dis-allows the negative.  Within the text of
the Code there is room for interpretation and if the wording of the Code is
found to be flawed (prohibits what is positive and allows the negative) a
mechanism for over-riding the "strict text" of the Code and acknowledging
the "intent" of the Code needs to be utilized.  If this mechanism is not
utilized then the flawed Code (in-place) will be used (law of the land)
until the text becomes revised.  This places the implementation and
interpretation of positive development as a function of document-adoption
timing rather than as a function of a document w/general concepts that is
open to flexible interpretation that is appropriate for the time.

    My perception of current NSA / Co-op zoning issues is that they have
very little to do with the intent of the Code, but are focused more on
interpreting the "strict text" of the Code.  I venture the vast majority of
Moscow's citizens would agree that both entities are appropriate land uses.
They both have greater positive impacts on the community, as a whole, than
negative.  There is potential for both entities to be disruptive if grown
too large, but I do not see the legal wranglings as solutions to resolve
    these issues.  It is mostly - sniping, a waste of time & energy, and
destructive to the community.  If there are concerns for the evolution of
Moscow, then those issues should be specifically addressed.

    One could also look at the current situation being very much the same
situation I describe:  maybe the Code is general in concept and it's the
citizenry that is flexing its interpretation; one that is appropriate and of
the time.  I don't know the best way, but I don't think this is the most
effective path to get Moscow where it wants to be.  Time will reveal an
answer - either through city council or court action - of what the Code
means.  I just don't perceive this process as a worthwhile method of
community development.  Whether it is the community relying on a Code that
needs this type of process for interpretation or the Code relying on the
community for interpretation the current process is in a very sorry state.

    Mark


    Mark Seman, Architect
    Heather Seman, Landscape Architect
    1404 East 'F' Street  Moscow, Idaho 83843
    v 208-883-3276 / f 208-883-0112

      -----Original Message-----
      From: DonaldH675 at aol.com [mailto:DonaldH675 at aol.com]
      Sent: Thursday, May 19, 2005 11:32 PM
      To: FCS at moscow.com
      Subject: Letter to Paul Kimmel


      Hi Mark:
      Could you clarify what you mean by:
      "Unfortunately, there are citizens that are using the current
ordinance as a weapon of community destruction and because it is in-place,
it is the "law of the land."
      Thanks,
      Rose

      "One cannot level one's moral lance at every evil in the universe.
There are just too many of them. But you can do something, and the
difference between doing something and doing nothing is everything." Daniel
Berrigan




----------------------------------------------------------------------------


    _____________________________________________________
     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
    ¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: http://mailman.fsr.com/pipermail/vision2020/attachments/20050520/c6c14c26/attachment-0001.htm