[Vision2020] Is a public vote allowable on WM for example

Thu Jan 12 12:54:10 PST 2006

Mike et. al.

Mike wrote:

"I apologize for the length of this post."

Good grief!

You offer a concise and informative outline of the legal process that
citizens and local government face for the Big Box debate, and you
apologize?

Oh, I forgot!  Any post more than three sentences long may interfere with
the soundbite obsessed harried ADD lifestyle of the Vision2020 reader,
causing them to pause long enough to actually think deeply about the issues
being discussed.  This will lessen the personal attacks,
frivolous nonsense and flame war atmosphere that often dominates the list, a
result making many malicious horned and tailed list members very unhappy.

Thanks for your informative post and please skip the apology.  Your post
should instead be applauded for the example it sets.

Ted Moffett

On 1/12/06, Michael Curley <curley at turbonet.com> wrote:
>
> Ron:
> You are, of course, right that a zoning decision cannot be put to a
> vote of the public.  The matter is administrative IF an entity (I'll
> call them BB, Inc. for big box) proposes to build at a location that
> is within the Moscow city limits AND in a zone where the entity is
> allowed as a matter of right by the zoning code.  The administrator
> is charged with seeing that BB complies with all portions of Moscow
> City Code applicable to the situation--building codes, setbacks,
> storm water runoff, signage, lighting, buffer (planting strips, etc).
> In any other situation, the matter is quasi-judicial--BB must ask
> for some type of permission or change to the code(s).  If BB proposes
> to locate where their type of operation is what is known as a
> "conditional use," then BB can locate there only with permission from
> the Board of Adjustment (whose decision can be appealed to City
> Council).  If the property is outside the city limits, it needs to be
> annexed and then rezoned.  If inside the city limits, but BB's
> operation is not currently permitted by right or by conditional use
> permit, then BB can ask for a rezone--which will be heard first by
> Planning and Zoning Commission for its recommendation to City
> Council, which will have another public hearing and render a final
> decision.
>
> One piece not often mentioned in discussions on 2020 (or elsewhere
> when I have heard them for that matter) is that a governmental entity
> cannot discriminate against BB.  It must treat BB and BB1 and BB2 all
> the same.  Thus, outside the imaginary BB world:  the city cannot
> allow Lowe's to do what it won't allow Home Depot to do--in the same
> location at least.  Certainly the city can deny HD a rezone on the
> east side of town (if there is cause to do so) and allow Lowe's a
> similar rezone (and sized store) on the west side (again, if there is
> good reason to do so).  Thus, the city can limit the size of new
> retail establishments to, for example, 150,000 sq. ft. (or less, or
> more)  But the limit would apply to Tri-State and Moscow Building
> Supply if they wanted to expand above that limit.  If they (or any
> other entity) is already above the limit, they would be a (legal) non-
> conforming use (some refer to this as being "grandfathered in," which
> is not exactly accurate, but...).
>
> The City could hold an advisory election to determine if a majority
> of Moscow voters would want the size (or location, etc) limits
> Council is or wants to consider.  As long as it is a legislative
> matter--concerning the passage of a code section applicable to all
> entities, there would be no problem with the vote (in my opinion).
> It could not be held, however, if it was related to a specific
> application.  For example, if Costco wanted to rezone a parcel, an
> advisory vote/election would violate Costco's due process rights (and
> probably others as well).  For better or worse, the public hearing
> process is where citizens could sound off about their interests and
> opinions about the pending application.
>
> That said, perhaps one can see why "planning" is such an important
> function.  Once faced with a specific application, the council's
> (and, thus, the citizens') options become substantially more limited.
>
> I apologize for the length of this post.
> Mike Curley
>
>
>
>
>
> From:                   "Ron Force" <rforce at moscow.com>
> To:                     <vision2020 at moscow.com>
> Subject:                RE: [Vision2020] Walmart
> Date sent:              Wed, 11 Jan 2006 14:44:36 -0800
>
> [ Double-click this line for list subscription options ]
>
> I don't believe there's any way under Idaho law for a zoning decision
> to be put to a vote. Doesn't it fall under an administrative
> decision,
> like the 10 Commandments decision in Boise?
>
> **********************************************
> Ron Force          Moscow ID USA
> rforce at moscow.com
> **********************************************
>
> Phil Roderick says:
> "I think Walmart proposal should be put to the vote of the people . .
> ."
>
> I don't think you'll get what you want, or what you think you'd get,
> if you put it to a vote.  Especially if you go countywide.
>
> I'm not saying it's right or wrong, but just what it is.
>
> DC
>
>
> _____________________________________________________
> 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
> ¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯
>
> _____________________________________________________
> 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/20060112/272011a6/attachment-0001.htm