Envision Freedom, Eureka

Freedom vs. Tyranny

Many things lately have been causing me to wonder whether this is the same country I grew up in.  The most recent occurred at our town hall, where two township officials discussed whether the township should take away building rights from property owners under certain circumstances.

Jeff Otto, chair of our board of supervisors, expressed the view that a building right is a significant part of the value of a property, and once a building has been erected on a site, the right should be considered as having been vested and not subject to forfeiture. 

Ken Olstad, a planning commission member, argued that it's just like anything else:  if you buy some stock in a company, you have to understand that it can go "poof."

For any reader who finds this reasoning compelling, I'd like to explain why I find it extremely frightening. 

These people, whether elected or appointed, are entrusted with the job of serving the people in a way that complies with the basic fundamental guarantees of the Bill of Rights, not just the more modern laws like the Wetlands Conservation Act.

So what's the difference between somebody losing their shirt in the market and somebody losing their rights to the government?  If you understand basic fairness, you would know that the difference between the market and government is that government imposes its will by force and the market is no more than a conglomeration of people, all of whom are trying to make a good deal, and none of whom have the legal right to compel you to buy anything.

Nor do they have sheriffs, police, or prisons.

This is an important difference, one that caused our founders to enshrine the Bill of Rights into our constitution.  There needs to be something to temper the power of government.  Otherwise, we get tyranny, which is what our founders were trying to avoid.

And another thing.  There's that word "inalienable" in the Declaration of Independence. 

Somebody else said this better:

The government of the United States is the result of a revolution in thought. It was founded on the principle that all persons have equal rights, and that government is responsible to, and derives its powers from, a free people. To Jefferson and the other Founding Fathers, these ideas were not just a passing intellectual fad, but a recognition of something inherent in the nature of man itself. The very foundation of government, therefore, rests on the inalienable rights of the people and of each individual composing their mass. The Declaration of Independence, written by Thomas Jefferson, is the fundamental statement of what government is and from what source it derives its powers.

If our governmental officials do not understand and respect these principles, we get the tyranny this country was founded to reject.

Cross-posted at www.steamvalveblog.com

What's in a Name? Part I

After reading about the County's street naming ordinance I started thinking about the power to name something.  A rose by any other name may smell as sweet, but "any other name" would conjure up a different image.

So here we have the "Dakota County Rural Collaborative Local Water Management Plan."  The name itself puts most people to sleep. (Do I really have to read it?)

Wouldn't it be nice if the title was less boring and convey something about what the Plan is about?  Here's one possibility:

The "It's so Hard to Read Let's Just Pass it Without Any Discussion" Plan.

That's what almost happened last August.  The plan was part of the public hearing where the Comprehensive Plan was also up for discussion.  The Comprehensive Plan draft had been through a long and public vetting process, and the public hearing attracted many concerned citizens eager to give their views on it.

In contrast, the "It's so Hard to Read Let's Just Pass it Without Any Discussion" Plan had not received any kind of discussion or opportunities for public input.  There was nobody at the public hearing who could address the questions that were raised about it.  In attending subsequent meetings of the Planning Commission, I learned that no-one on the planning commission had read it.

And who can blame them?  It's a horrible thing to try to get through.

For those brave and energetic souls who can get past the long and boring name, the mammoth size at 243 pages, together with the small print and liberal use of technical jargon and acronyms will generally cause the eyes to glaze over.  Because I do not want that to happen to my dear readers, I will not provide any long quotes from the document. 

The full text is available at the township's home page under "Rural Collaborative Water Plan"

There you can read all about glacial geomorphology, moraine areas, Des Moines Lobe till, surficial sediment, the obligatory sections on "Pre-Settlement Vegetation," "sensitive habitats and communities,""critical areas", and rare flora and fauna, along with many colorful maps showing us what the DNR sees when it looks at our land.  You can also learn about "stress ranges for brown trout."

There's even a section titled "Human Environment."  Unlike the sections covering plants and animals, however, there's no mention about stress ranges for humans or how this plan will affect landowners' blood pressure.  But you can read about all of the ways in which humans pose a potential threat to the groundwater.

At some point I learned that the "It's so Hard to Read Let's Just Pass it Without Any Discussion" Plan contained the actual text of Vermillion River Watershed Joint Powers Organization's Water Management Plan, and that's why it contained references to every geographical area within the entire watershed, instead of being limited to our township.  And that's why it contained so many goals, objectives and tasks that make no sense at all if applied to Eureka Township (e.g., "Continue to fund the Vermillion River Watch program," "Develop a management framework for water bodies, based on existing statutory classifications, desired uses, existing conditions, and the priorities of the VRWJPO")

There hasn't been any public discussion or consideration of any of this content to date.

After the August, 2008 public hearing, the sentiment was expressed at the next planning commission meeting that, considering the time and expense spent on the Plan, it was ridiculous that the planner who wrote it didn't bother explain it to anyone at the township.

Minutes from the following week's board meeting state that the planning commission needs more study of the Water Management Plan.

Fast forward to January, 2009.  Dean Johnson, the planner who wrote the "It's So Hard to Read, Let's Just Pass it Without Any Discussion" Plan, held a meeting in Empire Township, inviting all of the rural townships to send representatives so that he could explain the upcoming ordinances that he was going to draft to implement the plan.  I learned about the meeting and decided to attend so that I could ask the guy some questions.

The "You Don't Have to Understand it" Plan.

Mr. Johnson made it very clear that he didn't understand the technical aspects of the Plan.  He told the assembled township officials that if anybody asked them about TMDL's or anything like that, just respond that they didn't have to understand it either.  All the rural township officials have to know about the Plan, he explained, is that if they adopt it, they get to keep permitting authority, and if they don't adopt it, their landowners will have to go to the Vermillion River Watershed Joint Powers Organization for permitting.  This would, he said, probably have the effect of costing the landowners more money to get permits, not to mention having to go before both the JPO and the township to get a permit.

Mr. Johnson was asked about whether there would be maps showing what land parcels would be subject to the requirements in his draft ordinance to implement the "You Don't Have to Understand It" Plan.  He said that, due to the short deadlines for adopting the ordinance, the maps may not be ready before the deadline for adoption was up. 

To confirm my understanding of what he had just said, I asked whether that meant that the town boards were expected to pass his ordinance without knowing what land it would apply to.  He said yes.

Here's the handout addressing Mr. Johnson's thoughts on the "You Don't Have to Understand It" ordinance.  More possible names later.

Oops

Yes, I know I promised to post more on the Water Management Plan, and I will do that.  But first, and perhaps as an introduction to what I will post on the Water Management Plan, I offer this:

I read with interest Eureka Township's notice of an upcoming public hearing regarding the adoption of " a local ordinance referencing the USNAS (Uniform Street Naming and Addressing System) procedure manual from Dakota County Board."  What's that?

Turns out, Dakota County used to have an ordinance mandating this uniform street naming and addressing system, but the County repealed it last October.

Why?  Because the county didn't have the legal authority to enact the ordinance in the first place.

From the October 21, 2008 minutes of the Board of County Commissioners:

Repeal Dakota County Ordinance No. 51 And Adoption Of Dakota County Uniform Street Naming And Addressing Procedure Manual

WHEREAS, Dakota County Ordinance No. 51, Uniform Street Naming and Addressing System was originally adopted in 1965, and applied to properties and parcels of land within the unincorporated areas of Dakota County; and

WHEREAS, in a 1992 amendment to Ordinance No. 51, the scope of the ordinance was expanded and gave the County the authority to apply the ordinance to all streets and roads located in all the townships and certain cities located within the County; and

WHEREAS, Ordinance No. 51 exceeds the County’s authority because the County only has the authority to name and number County roads; and

WHEREAS, Dakota County, after consultation with the municipalities identified in Ordinance No. 51, wishes to maintain the current system for naming streets and assigning addresses in order to preserve a logical and consistent system to those assignments; and

WHEREAS, the street naming and addressing system has been defined in the Dakota County Uniform Street Naming and Addressing System Procedural Manual; and

WHEREAS, maintaining the current system for naming streets and assigning addresses as set forth in the Dakota County Uniform Street Naming and Addressing Procedural Manual will promote public safety; and

WHEREAS, the Dakota County Planning Commission recommends adoption of the Dakota County Uniform Street Naming and Addressing System Procedural Manual.

NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED, That the Dakota County Board of Commissioners hereby repeals Dakota County Ordinance No. 51, Uniform Street Naming and Addressing System, adopted October 26, 1965, as amended on October 21, 1975, and July 7, 1992; and

BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED, That the Dakota County Board of Commissioners hereby adopts the Dakota County Uniform Street Naming and Addressing Procedural Manual, as presented to the Physical Development Committee of the Whole on October 14, 2008; and

BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED, That the Acting Physical Development Division Director is hereby directed to send a copy of the adopted Dakota County Uniform Street Naming and Addressing Procedural Manual to the cities and townships identified in Dakota County Ordinance No. 51.