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

[Janice Willard]

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