Wednesday, July 18, 2007

At What Price - Part 2: The 57% Solution

At What Price – Part 2: The 57 Percent Solution
Why did this happen?

On July 17, The Comprehensive Plan was approved by the Page County Board of Supervisors. By the time they made the amendments which they worked out during the Retreat and in the following weeks, enough changes were made that the plan no longer said the most egregious things that had been added to it. In fact, those of us who call ourselves Page County Watch felt that the process worked in the end, and the final plan approved had the input of a broader group of citizens. We congratulate the Supervisors for listening to and understanding the intent of that broader citizen participation.

Some Supervisors said they were proud of the Comprehensive Plan, that it was a good plan. Page County Watch doesn’t agree. We agree that the changes the Supervisors made were good changes, and that they did manage to make it stop being an exceptionally bad plan. For that, we applaud them. But a Comprehensive Plan, by Virginia Code, contains the county’s Land Use Map to guide zoning. Our plan doesn’t have one.

Instead, our plan says, “Areas of severe development restriction are found along sections of the Shenandoah River and throughout the valley lowlands where Karst topography predominates and flood-prone areas are numerous. Because of these constraints, approximately 57 percent of the land in Page County is not suitable for development.” Understand, 34 % of the county is national and state parks. So that’s 57 + 34 = 91% of the county that “is not suitable for development.” In other words, we just approved a plan that wants to turn the county into a great big wildlife habitat. Great idea, if you’ve already got yours, and you want to make sure nobody else gets theirs. Taking a wild guess, I’d assume that some of that suitable 9% left for development is located on that large flat, non-flood-prone land area surrounding Yogi Bear park along route 211. I’m telling you, if I owned Yogi Bear park, I’d be hoppin’ up and down saying, “wow, what a great plan, let’s quickly move to keep development out,” myself.

So, yes, we’re happy that the Supervisors improved a bad situation, but we don’t go as far as saying, in the end, it was a good plan. Now, the important thing to learn from this situation is: how and why did we get ourselves into this place? We need to know that so that we don’t come here again next year and the year after that.

I think I have an answer to “how and why did this happen”. It’s a theory, yes, and I can’t prove it. Others might propose other theories, and that’s what the Comment button is for at the end of this Blog. How this happened is a matter of historical fact. The motives behind it, however, will remain speculation.

The “How” Part. Historical Fact.How it happened is simple. The time came to update the Comprehensive Plan, which was put together in 2001 by a large group of citizens. The thinking was that this would be just an “update” of the numbers in it, rechecking the population figures, assessing whether things were still true. So a subcommittee of the Planning Commission was charged with this update.

Only two citizens turned up to help the subcommittee write the Comprehensive Plan, and those two citizens both happen to be of the same mind regarding what the county should be. It should be a wildlife preserve, in their opinion. (That’s an editorial comment. I have no idea what their opinions are, except by what I hear them say and write, and that’s what it sounds like they are saying, to my ears.)

So for lack of staff to do the work, the volunteering citizens put a lot of effort into getting new numbers to update the plan, and oh, by the way, they also made a few “minor word changes” on An Unelected Citizen’s home computer. The minor word changes turned out to be similar to the famous “however” addition. That’s the one where “the scenic beauty attracts tourist and vacation cabins” was changed to “the scenic beauty, however, attracts tourist and vacation cabins”. While the changes were minor, they were lethal in their impact. The minor changes turned the TONE of the Plan around. It went from a simple statement of facts about the county, to a more complex statement of facts with moral judgements attached. Little and subtle word changes make a document that leaves a taste in your mouth. The flavor changes.

Don’t even tell me you can’t taste what I’m writing here. That’s what An Unelected Citizen did to the Comprehensive Plan. The citizen gave it a flavor, with a comma here, and a “but” there, and a subtle twist of the knife in the back. Words have the power to do that. I could write a document that could make you feel the nails sticking out of the paper, and yet you couldn’t exactly put your finger on which words were the ones that did that. The Intent of the Author shines through a document. This Author had an Intent based on a Belief and a Value System, and that Belief and Value System weeps from the page. These were not acts taken with evil intention. They were that citizen’s opinion about what was best for the county.

We all have an opinion, and individually, each of our opinions is worth what we pay for them. The key to opinions is that you need a whole large Gaggle of them, from differing viewpoints and broad backgrounds, before they’re worth any more than two cents. You can never do something with the impact of a Comprehensive Plan without actively soliciting that large Gaggle of opinion. Some people are of the opinion that their opinion is worth more than other people’s opinions, and so they try to impose theirs on other people’s houses, bank accounts, and lifestyles. From here on out, for ease of reference, let’s refer to those people as “True Believers”.

So when we look at the “How” of what happened, we can sum it up by saying, “True Believers wrote the plan, and then it got into the Process, and the Process is like a runaway train. It takes one big Bump in the Rail to try to stop it.”

Now that’s the How. What’s the Why?The real Why here is “why didn’t the Supervisors recognize what had happened here and step in and stop it before it got this far?” Why didn’t they acknowledge that the Plan had not been given an opportunity to have widespread distribution and citizen input, before it got to the point of “needing” to be passed before the deadline?

The closest thing I’ve ever heard as an answer to this question is that the Supervisors individually said they liked the plan. They liked the idea that the plan strongly promotes “retaining our rural lifestyle” by limiting development. They wanted a vision statement that says we are managing growth. More importantly, they wanted to get this phase over with, so the more important issue of the specifics of zoning ordinance changes could begin. They didn’t think the plan was bad enough to need changing any more than the changing they actually did do, as a result of their Retreat and followup work. Being pragmatic, they thought it was more important that a general plan be approved, and a specific zoning change process begin, than it was that wider citizen input be introduced late in the process. AND . . . and this is an important AND . . . they weren’t accustomed to having wide citizen input for any reason.

By their reasoning, if any citizens had wanted to have input or cared about the process, those citizens would have shown up three years ago in the beginning and wrested that disk out of the hands of An Unelected Citizen in the first place. So they thought, “if no citizens cared enough to bother stepping in and competing for Air Time to get their opinions included in the Plan when it was being written, then that means they’ve abdicated their right to complain about it after it’s been done.” They didn’t believe they were responsible to proactively inform the citizens about what their government was doing to them. Rather, they believed it was the citizens responsibility to proactively seek out the information for themselves.

This was the attitude the Board showed when they raised the real estate taxes from $6.7M to $11.3M in one year. They didn’t believe it was their responsibility to justify or explain themselves to the citizens about how and why they were doing that. They didn’t think it was necessary for them to explain the budget increase. Rather, they believed it was the citizens responsibility to look into it themselves, should they so desire to be informed.

So the Why of how this happened is:
It happened because the Beliefs and Values of the Board are that they are following the Process, and following the Process is what they are obligated to do. In their Belief, it is the Citizens’ obligation to take the initiative to participate in that Process, and learn how it works. In their Belief, it is not the Board’s obligation to go the extra mile to bring the Citizens into Enlightenment about the process’ inner workings. Once they follow the Process . . . well, then, the Results are “not their fault”.

This is Why it happened. It happened because the leadership of the Board of Supervisors, which sets the stage for its culture, believe that Process trumps Common Sense. I admit that now and then, I have personally seen Common Sense peek out from beneath the curtain. But it spends most of its time, hiding in shame, hoping the Lawyers don’t see it.

Next Installment: Who chased Common Sense into hiding? (And why does it smell like a Landfill)

Got a Comment? Push the Comments button. Anybody can do it. No Names Required.

16 comments:

Anonymous said...

The thing that angers me the most is that instead of doing their job, the Board of Supervisors allowed a non-supersisor, with her own personal agenda, to rewrite a document that could have had the power to destroy citizen's lives!

Karl Baldwin
Mountain Lodging
Vacation Cabin Rentals
www.mountain-lodging.com

Anonymous said...

You're right on target, Karl. Amen. I think that's one of the compelling reasons some people are seeking public office these days.

J.D. Cave
Candidate for Supervisor
District 3

Anonymous said...

GOOD GOVERMENT STARTS WITH THE SUPERVISORS, AND THAT INCLUDES ENCOURAGING A BROAD BASE OF CITIZEN INVOLVEMENT, NOT DISCOURAGING AS WE SEEN AT THE RETREAT, ITS TIME THE PEOPLE OF PAGE COUNTY TOOK ITS COUNTY BACK BEFORE IT'S TO LATE

Page County Watch said...

I'm really encouraged to see so many people signing their names. It's a good sign, that the Blog is getting better. There is a new comment by Joy Lorien which is posted under Part 1 that refers to the subject of Part 2, also. If you haven't revisited Part 1, you might be interested in checking the new comments there.

Alice

Anonymous said...

There was an interesting exchange between D. Short and Jim Turner a few blogs back. The significance of the exchange is its underlying message that suggests the application of reason and good sense in dealing with future county zoning issues. If you two folks are so inclined it would be a good thing if you brought your comments forward to this blog via copy and paste.

Anonymous said...

Thank-you Alice for your response and sorry that I posted on section one and have no idea how I even got there.

Only a couple of points on your response and in the second paragraph I seem to sense the added hyperbole of ding dongs, three ring circus, smells, etc was for the intention of getting more readers yet in fact it is way to malevolent for me who have teamworkk and peaceful resolutions as a priority to this kind of arena.You and yours continue to badger a person who has for over ten years faithfully attended hundreds upon hundreds of town meetings and given technical support and true upon true her own vision for this county. That it was done in what you call a vacumn was because no one else participated and when the Plan was ready to be adopted you and others did your civic duty by stepping up to the plate and making your views known.

Please now let all this maligning of our elected supervisors, our planning commission and Natalie Zuckerman go and move the hell on. It is good you are there but if you continue in the same thread that most of this forum consists of you defeat your purpose which is to give clear informed happenings and news so that more people can become part of the process. There is so much more to blog on to keep the public aware of what is happening in our community concerning sustainability, community support, low impact development. organic farming and much more and how we can bring these ideas to our elected officials. It is why I have decided to take my post again with the Friends of Page Valley to have information meetings with the community and to be a presence within the governing arena of my own community. I have align with other organization on addressing air quality in this community which has seriously deterioted over the years and on health impacts of sludge along with more global issues and groups on conservation efforts but I had no idea what was happening with the Friends till this controversy broke loose and hope we can now all work together. Despite your insistence of adverse reaction of the Board to citizen participation I have to say and believe, because they have said it several times in the last couple of weeks that our Board will relish more people for there's is a thankless and consuming job especially in times like these
Sincerely
Joy Lorien

Anonymous said...

Page County Watch said...
"I'm really encouraged to see so many people signing their names."

A bit off topic but while this blog is maturing, I wanted to point out that the default "Choose an Identity" is Google/Blogger. Since I started commenting here, I used that default signature method as I have a Google handle. My previous comments were signed "Appropriator". Just to be clear, Karl L. Baldwin and Appropriator are one in the same.

Karl Baldwin
Mountain Lodging
Vacation Cabin Rentals
www.mountain-lodging.com

Anonymous said...

AT THE REQUEST OF MY FRIEND STEVE WHISLER I'M BRINGING THIS FORWARD FROM A PREVIOUS BLOD.Short said...
I found this very pertinent letter in the Richmond times several months ago. It is written by a Mr. Mike Walton of Richmond
"County Growth Issues Bring Out Selfish Side"
All this hullabaloo about the growth issues in Hanover and elsewhere just shows what people are really thinking
People say they want to maintain the rural nature of the county, when in reality, they just want to enjoy the view of someone elses property without sacrificing anything. They wish to tell someone what he cannot do with his property because the view is more important. Mind you, they never buy that man's land to preserve it, nor do they seem to give him a tremendous tax break to keep the land natural.
The real items of scorn are their own kids. Son to dad: Dad I can't wait to live and work near here. Daughter to mother: Mom won't it be great when I get married and have kids and then I can live near you?
To which the parents reply, "Sorry, we are a no-growth people. As for your jobs and living nearby, nope not in our backyard. Your living out here would just spoil the view and clog the roads."
What a bunch of self-centered and spoiled brats.
Mike Walton

I found this to be an excellent letter. Certainly we want to preserve our rural character, but there are many regular working folks who could easily be pushed out and left behind if some of these "preservation" techniques are not used carefully. Can the government condemn or overrule a conservation easement? Could a group or individual purchase a parcel of property and donate an easement in order to prevent a road or other useful development? I think most folks would use this responsibly but this could be a very powerful weapon as well. Who are we as individuals in a very small period in history to cast our wants upon future generations? Many see this as forward thinking but I see this as somewhat nearsighted. None of us can see the future. What may have seemed like a pastoral piece of countryside at one point in history may end up being a wasted space in what may be the perfect spot for economic development 100 years from now.

Thursday, July 12, 2007


JIM TURNER said...
THIS IS VERY TRUE, THAT IS WHY WE MUST CONTINUE TO STAY INVOLVED IN COUNTY GOVERMENT AND INSURE WE ARE NOT PROGRESSING OUR SELVES RIGHT OUT OF OUR FUTURE, OR OUR CHILDREN'S.,I THINK WE NEED TO PLAN FOR THE FUTURE BUT AT THE SAME TIME NOT OVER REACT, IF YOU LOOK AT THE STATS FOR THE PAST 30 YEARS THINGS REALLY HAVN'T CHANGED A WHOLE LOT, I DON'T THINK THE INFLUX IS COMING AS HARD AND AS FAST AS SOME WOULD HAVE US BELIVE.A.K.A. N. Z. AND COMPANY.

Thursday, July 12, 2007


Page County Watch said...
Jim and Darrell, that's what I was thinking. The point of a
G

Anonymous said...

Mr. Whisler, I'll leave that to the computer experts. I certainly applaud Mr. Houser, Mr. Otto, and others who use conservation easements wisely. We must be careful though of those who say we must preserve land, therefore we must do so at all cost. This is not unlike the environmentalists who cry humans are destroying the earth so we must stop it at any cost (including lots of Federal grant money). Government forced preservation is not the answer. We need to work with landowners to find economically viable ways to preserve land. Rental cabins could be such an income supplement to possibly save a farm from being taken out of production and sold for lots, yet those are "too detrimental to the river". We should not herd everyone who cannot afford a $250,000 building lot into cramped communities near town simply for the sake of preservation. The fact of the matter is we live in an exponentially growing world and we simply cannot stop progress. If we are to save land we need to do so in a sensible way that benefits future generations rather than holds them hostage to what some think is best today.
Ironically we all want the same thing basically. I've heard no one say "where are the strip malls?" or "I can't wait for that next 100 unit condo to move in here." but there are better ways to manage growth than through force.

Anonymous said...

I will share with you Alice and Pagecountywatch abit of history. I walked into the local government
arena twelve years ago as Field Director of Friends Of Page Valley, a group gathered to educate ourselves and the community on this sensitive special place we live in by having environmental meetings. Our first meeting was with the VCC and our immediate dedication to the protection of our streams and rivers from agricultural run-off due to the spreading of poultry litter on Karst. i know you loathe that word but it is the knowledge of this earths geology and how it affects our water and its health thus connected to the health of the citizens. One must even adapt to ones sense of place landwise as well as on the surface of society. One must be as important as the other.

Our county did not have a nutrient management plan on the books and we sought to address that. Of course I was appalled at the reception of our request before the supervisors meeting and you never met a supervisor like Earl Hilliards. I was bashed and practically cursed for daring to mess with a persons livelihood when in fact i was seeking to protect the health of our waterways. Unlike you Alice I did not vent on a public arena or maybe I would have in truth some of your same comments for I remember crying many of times in my family of the Friends circle when I was viciously attacked. It was called a good-ole-boy network and nepotism that was hard to penetrate yet I liked the Plnning Commission meetings and learned alot there. There was no one really there to draft an ordinance for a NMP and when the participaants involved drafted one it was protested by the farmers and denied and then the farmers formed a group. That was the best thing that happen for it needs to come from them and I am thrilled to see Jerry Turner grow under the vision of community and not just specialized groups

. Unfortunately that move made our county again look like the 'bad apple' as quoted in the Daily News Record. Poor timing or good timing all how you look at it, for phisteria broke out and EPA jumped in and I testified twice in Richmond and two times in Harrisonburg on why we need this practice on the books. But it boils down to being good stewards of the land and living in a community in a way that will sustain a viable relationship with each other. In three years though this arena burned me out and I am glad I did not give a blow by blow account of this most sensitive entrance into such a volatile arena for I really needed more time to form a more rounded opinion for I am a visionary, poet, lover of nature and politics are anti to my peaceloving nature. I do not like too see two sides of the same coin arguing with each other as they have when I have entered in lately. Yet never the less who am I to limit free speech which our nation is founded on but just taking up for the old guard who has faithfully manned the ship and must be thanked before she is ripped apart. You Alice almost gave it up after a planning commission meeting and I after three years fell out of sight completely retiring to the woods. In my humble opinion it is the most awesome thing that we can enter into this great architecting of this community no matter who we are. I hope I can come back I do not know it makes my stomach hurt :-) but I will give you a word of caution my friends do not jump to fast in this frying pan unless you have a certain inner purpose of place and people in your hearts and to work for community peace. We need it! Am glad you are here. Forgive in part my to many statemets about malevolent behavior for we see evil to readily and must first see the good in each of us. Many regards to you continue to be part of what could be a difficult road to walk.
Sincerely
Joy Lorien

Anonymous said...

just a few thoughts. I completly recognize everyones right to there own opinion, and I respect each one, But what it comes down to is the local goverment doesn't recognize the magority of the people or the magority of consensus. this has to change , my position if we can plan wisely for our future and are children and can please 90% of the people, I think that represents good goverment,not pleasing 10%.

Kim said...

joy lorien said….
It is yours too but you came into this arena so demeaning the supervisors, citizens, and the process by your nails scratching on the blackboard of the process, cacophony screaming of ding dongs, drinking bathwater, three-ring circus, following smells and screaming holy moly that you have lost your own dignity and have become what you accuse others of. The "True Believer" wearing her specialized galsses and gathering her adherents like the blind leading the blind.

Interesting.

1) No one here started out in such a crazed manner as you describe. Please, before attempting to summarize a past occurrence, may I suggest doing a little homework so that your facts are straight? Personally, I think Alice and many here were very nice considering their homes had become marked targets.

2) I find your characterization of our actions telling. All actions taken have been 100% legal and completely in line with the process. Are you saying that dissention is anti-process? Perhaps we should have just prostrated ourselves before the almighty that so wisely penned the document that would have stolen our homes. Would that have fit your definition of pro-process?

3) So, we have become what we accuse others of. Again I say, interesting. I have accused those involved of attempted thievery. I have accused some of corruption. I ask you…what have I attempted to steal…to whom have I sold my soul?

4) Seriously…are you saying that we are just a bunch of kool-aid drinkers and that Alice is our god? No, really…you can’t be serious?! Our objections to the government and a few unofficial government officials trying to steal our homes qualify us as blind fools? Oh, I understand…this is also where we’re supposed to just take what is handed down to us by the government (un)officials. Wait…wouldn’t that truly make us blind fools?

joy lorien said…
I seem to sense the added hyperbole of ding dongs, three ring circus, smells, etc was for the intention of getting more readers yet in fact it is way to malevolent for me who have teamworkk and peaceful resolutions as a priority to this kind of arena.You and yours continue to badger a person who has for over ten years faithfully attended hundreds upon hundreds of town meetings and given technical support and true upon true her own vision for this county.

With all due respect, Joy, I could not disagree with your post more. Let me take a moment to explain what malevolent is. Malevolence is forcibly taking someone’s home. Malevolence is spitting in the face of those who have toiled for years, through blood, sweat and tears, to own a home. Malevolence is casually brushing aside the property rights of the citizens of this county.

Let us not forget that the citizens were hardly treated with kid gloves. We were lied to. We were told our presence, while legal, was not welcome. We were told, in writing (specifically 3(c)), that the county had a goal of eradicating our presence. We were told to not touch the pastries.

You see saints, I see otherwise.

Let me explain something to you, Joy. When someone shows up on my doorstep to forcibly take my home, I can assure you that I will do everything that is legally in my power to stop them. I will protect my home with everything that I have. I will not be nice. I will not throw tea parties. I will wear my big-girl panties. I will call a spade a spade. I will be a thorn in the side of any person whose “vision for the county” is the theft of my home.

I ask you, Joy, do you happen to live on a flood plain in Page County? I would wager to say the answer to that question is “No”.

Finally, as for “mov[ing] the hell on”, I agree to an extent. We can now proceed with a watchful, keen and knowing eye. However, moving on is not forgetting. A record must be made. If we plunge blindly into the future without keeping an eye to the past, we will be doomed to face the same or similar debacle.

Page County Watch said...

All this activity on the Blog makes me feel that this work succeeded. I'm sipping the leftover champagne from Tuesday nights Win Party right now.

Kim, thank you.

Joy, we are ready to move on. As in . . . our rifles and machine guns are slung over our shoulders, but we're not likely to shoot first, from this point out. I forgive, but I don't forget.

I can bet it was a big problem to interfere with the livelihood of a bunch of farmers. And I can attest that I would never do that, no matter how Karst the topography is.

When you step from being a person who loves the rural nature to a person who wants to impose their opinion on the homes and the livelihoods of others, that in my opinion transcends from Environmentalism to Eco-Terrorism. This "series" is called "At What Price" to recognize that you have to pay for measures taken that are intended to "protect the environment". You can't pay for them by stealing from the people who own the property.

I'm hoping that we've made that point to all the people who have the power to vote about it, because if we have, it will be easy to move on and start paying attention to the more important issues, like how are we going to get this Land Use Map put together and what changes really need to be made to the zoning? To what end?

Jim Turner asked some questions in his district and made a list of key issues that the residents of Page care about most. First, lowering taxes, Second, more jobs, Third, property rights. Preserving the rural nature of the county is an "oh, yeah, that, too" on the list of most people who live here. Most people in this county have economic concerns before they have environmental concerns. Those have to be addressed and resolved. The ideal would be to resolve them without making them mutually exclusive. You don't have to ruin the environment in order to manage the economy. But the converse of that is not true. You MAY have to ruin the economy in order to manage the environment. THAT is what made it so hard to get anything done on a "nutrient management program". It's priorities. People have to be in a state of economic health first. It's just fine and dandy to do a conservation easement on 100 acres when you own 400. It's not fine when you own 10, and you thought you were going to break that up into 2 acre lots so each of your kids could have one.

Economic health has to be a given, and if it is on its way to health, then the environment is managed in there to the extent that can be afforded. But the government can't come in and take away property rights in order to "protect the environment". The government can offer incentives, encouragements, and benefits for doing environmental things. It can't just grab people's land. That's where this all went sour, and where it can never go in the future, if any progress is to be made toward "rural preservation" and environmentalism. Voluntary programs and incentives only. No bullying.

This county has a lot of poor people. The way to offer them "affordable housing" is to make it possible to buy small lots, and to make a decent wage without having to drive into a city, not to set up tenement buildings and corral them into "welfare projects".

I would consider responsible spending to lower taxes and bringing jobs into the county, to be higher priorities for county government action than rewriting the zoning ordinances. But, if the zoning ordinances are going to be rewritten . . . I will want to be there.

Alice

Anonymous said...

Hats off- spoken like a true Page countian, Page county watch

Anonymous said...

D. Short and Jim Turner,
Sorry, didn’t mean to get you caught in the current thread with Kim, Alice and this Joy person. Kind of reminds me of the carnival game “Whack-A-Mole!” The good news is that your comments dovetail nicely into what Kim and Alice are trying to communicate. Don’t tug on Superman’s cape! Don’t spit into the wind! And never tamper with people’s pocketbooks or property rights! It tends to turn very nice folks into a horde of very angry villagers with pitchforks and burning torches at the castle or courthouse gate. I digress!
My initial intent was to open what I had hoped to be a dialogue about “Where do we go from here?” The comprehensive plan is long on comprehensive and very short on plan. At this point it is a road to nowhere. If you squint real hard and stand on your head, at best, it can be seen as a plan to plan. Why it took three years to say we need to plan rather than actually developing the requisite elements of a comprehensive plan as contemplated by Virginia code is beyond me. That said! It is what it is.
I share your concerns about being short-sighted solely in the interest of preserving the rural environment and ecological issues. Putting land into conservancy is kind of like beer, in moderation it is a good thing. However, too much of a good thing can lead to unintended consequences. The same would apply to overzealous zoning that would cripple the county to a point where there will be no place for economic growth and, as importantly, for the youth of today and tomorrow to go but somewhere else. The recent tax increase (with more to come) and the rising price of land have already begun to marginalize a lot of people in the county. Enacting unreasonable zoning restrictions would make it tougher still for the average citizen, especially the youth of the county, to buy into their own heritage.

So, the question remains, “Where do we go from here?”

By the way, Jim, I am flattered that you consider me a friend even though we have only spoken a few times. I feel likewise.

Page County Watch said...

Yes! What Steve said. That's what I meant, even if it isn't what I said.

I used to live in Montgomery County, Maryland. Very rich county. Budget bigger than the profit of American Express. I never had to go to a county government meeting there. Why not? Because there was never any possibility that the county government there would make any attempt in any way to interfere with property rights. Why wouldn't they? Because the developers would have taken them down if they had tried it. The developers were looking out for MY property rights, however unintentionally.

As I said at the Supervisors meeting on July 17, we don't have any developers here. You can tell because they aren't in the room right now. Without developers to provide the balance and the money-power to oppose attempts to impinge on property rights, bad things can happen if there are people who want to take it on themselves to know "what is good for the county" without asking the people who own their land.

I didn't know, when I first came here, that the pitchfork and the torch would be necessary to defend the castle. It would be a terrible price to have to pay, if we have to have developers come in here just so I can put the pitchfork down. So it would be far better if anybody reading this would just get it through their heads that property rights are sacrosanct, and then we stand a good chance of reaching an agreement that actually DOES benefit the environment, through voluntary incentives . . . which quite a few people might actually choose to take advantage of!

Anyhow, I've added a new Thread called "Where do we go from here" for comments about positive constructive statements about what we could do next.

Alice