[Vision2020] They're coming to take your land--Follow our
leaderJeffHarkins!
Donovan Arnold
donovanarnold at hotmail.com
Wed Jan 26 18:58:08 PST 2005
Janice,
I agree with you that not everyone fits any label or category well. However,
I don't believe that I did label you. I believe it was you that categorized
yourself by saying that you are opposite of Mr. Harkins on the political
spectrum.
I also did not say that Republicans agree with Bush on everything or not. I
am sure they don't, but voting for him is the same as agreeing to continue
with his policies. There was nobody there holding a gun to their head saying
vote for Bush or Kerry. Those that voted Bush are responsible for the
decisions that Bush has made in the past and that he is continuing now. They
should be able, willing, and proud to defend their decision to continue
these policies.
In terms of the of the Land Use ordinance, there is only one of two areas
that can be wrong with any legislation. The first is the structure and
mechanics of the bill. This includes codification, grammar, legal
definitions, and detail (structure of legislation meeting Idaho Code). The
second is the actual laws and regulations themselves, i.e., how many cattle
per square mile, limitations on dumping solid waste, building codes (fair or
unfair content of the legislation).
Most of the complaints that are being stated are people that wish to
redebate already existing laws. I don't think we should redebate every law
that has been in existence for the last 10-200 years. That is stupid, a
waste of time, and not an achievable goal. There is a solid history in
Idaho, Latah, and Federal that has lead to these laws. Further, even if you
were to debate every single law and the majority agreed on a change, you
still could not change most of them anyway because they are decided in the
Federal and State level.
Your argument, as I understand it, is with the mechanics of the bill. You
may be correct that the mechanics of the bill could be improved. However,
this is a trained skill. Mechanics of legislation requires years of
legislative experience, extensive education in law, or extensive education
in administrative management. Unless you are one of these your input is
probably not any better than that of the input to doctors on heart
transplantation drugs to prevent organ rejection in a person with diabetes
and type -B blood.
Are you, Mr. Harkins, and the Joe Smith landowner able to understand the
legal mechanics of writing law? Do you know all segments of Idaho State Code
and Federal Regulations regarding wording, legal definitions, and
codification regarding the writing law? You must know this to the write the
Land Use Ordinance. You must also be aware that all changes made to the
content of the law cannot be in conflict with any other State or Federal
law. Do you know enough about all Federal and State regulations to do this?
How an ordinance is codified is regulated. How an ordinance is worded is
regulated. If you don't know those regulations, you cannot write the
legislation.
We do not live in a direct democracy. We leave in a representative
democracy. We don't vote on how the sewer system should be designed. We vote
to elect people to hire the experts to make design our sewer system. We
don't vote on the wing design of the airplanes. We vote for people to hire
aeronautical engineers that are knowledgeable to do this. The same holds
true for writing of the law. You need someone with the experience and
education to do it for you.
The people have a right to make demands. If they don't like the way
something is, they need to petition the government, in this case the County
Commissioners, the Idaho State Legislature, and their US members of Congress
to fix something in their daily lives.
However, saying that you don't like the way the law is written so we are
going to storm the board and write the law ourselves, is like saying we
don't like the fact that doctors are not curing cancer so we are going to
storm the hospitals and perform the surgery ourselves.
This is mob mentality. It solves nothing. If people that are untrained in
the area of law and writing legislation are to write the zoning codes you
are going to end up with laws that are unenforceable, in violation of
federal and state code, contradicting, unclear to legal experts and massive
confusion by those that are required to enforce the law.
I am not saying that people are not smart enough to understand the law. Nor
am I saying that people should not be involved in the legal making process.
Nor am I saying that all the laws and the mechanics of the laws are as good
as they can be. What I am saying is that unless someone has those years or
experience and/or in writing law they should stick to their input being
about what they think is fair or unfair and explaining to those that are
capable of writing law to word for them in accordance with current local,
state and federal regulations.
I believe we need to allow the board members, county commissioners, and law
enforcement a chance to do their jobs before jumping on their case. People
like Mr. Harkins are trying to pretend to be experts in the area of
understanding the law. They are not. And it is very clear based on his usage
of legal terminology. He has already used several words incorrectly in an
attempt to sound like he knows what he talking about. He does not, and that
is obvious to anyone with any law writing experience. He also fails to
realize that a word in a legal document does not necessarily have the same
definition and meaning in his Webster dictionary or in everyday use.
To be honest, I cannot help but to laugh at this. Mr. Harkins and his way of
thinking reminds me of the story of the little boy when shown pictures of
the most wanted people in America asked, "Why don't they just arrest them
went they took the picture?". A reasonable question, but a failure to
understand the entirety of the situation.
Mr. Harkins has a gift to lead people, and to convince people of certain
ideas. However, he uses his talents and speaking abilities to attack,
mislead, and destroy, not to create. I have never seen Mr. Harkins support
any idea that was not his own.
Those that follow Mr. Harkins deserve the legislation they are going to get
for it.
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
>leaderJeffHarkins!
>Date: Wed, 26 Jan 2005 09:38:30 -0800
>
>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
> > > > ¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯
> > >
> >
> >
>
More information about the Vision2020
mailing list