Issue:  Advisory vs. Regulatory Master Plan

October 9, 2008, Elbert County Planning Commission Meeting Audio

(42 Megs, please right click and download to your computer for listening.  Sorry about the file size.  It is a very clear recording and with headphones you can hear pretty much everyone in the hall.  The meeting lasted approximately 45 minutes.)

Of particular interest was the closing discussion about continuation of the issue.  This planning commission has no intention of forwarding a recommendation to the current BOCC for an executive decision.

This planning commission and every member of the audience who spoke, often to applause, and excluding myself, favor a regulatory master plan.  The audience contained many SVV activists.  Listen to the audio.  This is not democracy.  This is not a vote of the people.  These people don’t care about legalities.  They will have their regulations one way or another.  This is mobocracy.

“The BOCC needs to recruit small business in the county, veteran-based businesses, and an agricultural-based local farmers’ market. We need to seek grant money from the State of Colorado for developing cellulosic ethanol from indigenous switchgrasses and set up small distillation coop facilities. We need to utilize the dry and windy eastern half of the county to bring in the production of clean electricity via wind and solar technologies. We also need to develop our historical sites within the county, and sponsor a vibrant day tourism industry.”

From:What Patty Sward & Robert Thomasson Will Do To Fix It

Good grief!

A farmer’s market where there are no truck farms.  State subsidies and state coops.  Power technologies that require state subsidies to be economic.  A handful of local historic sites.  A vibrant day tourism industry to attract the tourist segment that likes to watch switchgrass grow when they’re not skiing in the mountains.  Maybe we can find some descendants of indigenous Americans to claim some land for a casino. Look out Central City, we’re going to need some of your tour buses.

Come on people!!!  This stuff is beyond pathetic.

RE:

Original August 28th Planning Document for regulatory amendments

Revised August 28th Planning Document for regulatory amendments

Both of these documents are dated August 28th.  All of the detailed changes to existing regulations in both documents are identical.

The recommendations section, however, has been reversed in the revised version.  There is no indication in the revised document that it now contains a reversal of opinion.

Mr. Miller’s revised recommendation would perpetuate Elbert County’s exposure to the spurious conclusions of Judge Holmes in the SVV case. 

The BOCC should act with all due prejudice in this matter as soon as possible, and Mr. Miller’s subversion of his original recommendation should not be tolerated.  Mr. Miller is quite wrong in characterizing the “advisory” nature of the master plan as a matter of “desire.”  This is a matter of law, a matter of a long-standing precedent course of dealing, and a matter of rectifying an act of judicial hubris. 

Mr. Miller’s new-found position that a resolution of the advisory nature of the master plan, if “desired” (by whom?), should be left to a complete re-write of all county regulations, is completely disingenuous.  He knows full well that Elbert County can’t even get a rewrite to the master plan done, let alone a complete revamp of county regulations.  The BOCC should put a stop to Mr. Miller’s hubris too.

If Elbert County citizens want a regulatory master plan they should vote on the question.  Judge Holmes and Mr. Miller should not be deciding this matter between themselves.  

(click to enlarge)

(click to enlarge)

RE: Recommended Changes to Elbert County Regs to affirm the advisory Master Plan

In response to the SVV case regarding the authority of the county Master Plan,

see: http://elbertcounty.net/blog/2008/02/13/spring-valley-vistas-case-docs/ ,

and see: http://elbertcounty.net/blog/2008/02/03/is-master-plan-regulation-or-advisory/ ,

the BOCC affirmed the advisory nature of the county Master Plan by directing all Master Plan language in county Zoning Regulations, Subdivision Regulations, and 1041 Regulations, to be changed or removed to reflect this fact.

Well done Commissioners! Thank you for doing the right thing by rescuing the county from Judge Holmes’ judicial activism.  His attempt to direct county regulatory policy from the bench was wrong headed and the BOCC was absolutely correct to nullify it.

Moreover, the ambiguity of the Master Plan question has been a festering thorn in Elbert County’s side for years.  This BOCC of John Metli, Suzie Graeff and Hope Goetz, has done the county a great service by resolving it, and by resolving it the correct way.

* 9/25/08 update *

Comments to Elbert County Planning Commission

Commissioners engaged in some dialog with me after I read this statement.  I was able to reinforce the point about the inconsistency between general planning directives and regulatory law, and how the former due to its ambiguity should never become law.  One commissioner brought up the new master planning efforts and I was able to make the point about how the transportation master plan contains language that is quite extraneous to transportation.  This commissioner expressed favor for the master plan and said that the planning commissioners could make it regulatory if they chose.  I think he over reached on that comment.  In an effort to understand his favorable disposition toward planning in general, I asked him how the existing master plan had benefited Elbert County since its inception in 1996.  I believe the answer was, “a lot of arguments.”  The point was made.

After my bit, the planning commission heard a subdivision application.  The application entailed a novel use of an existing category of subdivision regulations applied to a new set of circumstances, with the intent of cutting down on bureaucratic red tape.

Many provisions of this regulation set were held to not apply to this particular application, and many provisions of the application were repeated verbosely numerous (5 or 6) times in different sections of the application.  After hearing the entire thing, my guess is that if you took out the redundancies and the inapplicable provisions of the application, a 20 page document could have been narrowed down to one or two pages, and a tremendous amount of time and expense could have been avoided by the Elbert County Community and Development Services Department, the property representative, the planning commissioners, and those attending this meeting.  So much for one-size-fits-all governmental solutions.  It’s a real tragedy to see so much brain power wasted on mind-numbing redundancy and inapplicable details.

When you least expect it, the most interesting revelations surface. I was discussing some fundamental differences between my positions and positions of the left with some Democrats yesterday. As usually happens in these situations, they grew increasingly impatient with me as I defended my position from compromise. As we parted, they made a reference to their firmly held belief that the French Revolution was the logical outcome of Laissez Faire capitalism. They all held this conclusion as if it were fact, and they tossed off questions to this assumption as they departed as absurd. (more…)

Candidate Robert Thomasson

advocates “Smart Growth” for Elbert County, an “urban planning and transportation theory that concentrates growth in the center of a city to avoid urban sprawl; and advocates compact, transit-oriented, walkable, bicycle-friendly land use.” It’s difficult to imagine “walkable, bicycle-friendly” corridors that would be practical over the distances in Elbert County.

Candidate Andy Wyer

believes “managed growth is designed to preserve the rural life style and quality of life that we all enjoy in Elbert County.” “Growth management is a set of techniques used by government to ensure that as the population grows that there are services available to meet their demands. These are not necessarily only government services. Other demands such as the protection of natural spaces, sufficient and affordable housing, delivery of utilities, preservation of buildings and places of historical value, and sufficient places for the conduct of business are also considered.

One technique is the imposition of impact fees. Impact fees are imposed to charge the owners of newly developed properties for the “impact” the new development will have on the community. Fees can be used for such things as transportation improvements, new parks, and expansion of schools. Impact fees are not used to maintain existing facilities, but instead are used to create new facilities in proportion to the number of new developments in the area.

Another technique is application of zoning to reduce the cost of service delivery. Zoning can be used to reduce the area affected by urbanization, allowing the same number of people to live and work in a smaller area, allowing services to be delivered more efficiently. For example, grocery stores and pizza delivery businesses can service only a limited area. If more customers are located within their service delivery area, the cost of delivering their services is decreased.

Preventing suburban densities from affecting a large area also has the effect of providing open spaces so that people who wish to live in a rural setting can do so without urbanization threatening their lifestyle.

The application of growth management techniques are often governed by the development of a comprehensive plan. The plan can be used to measure the impact that new growth will have on the community and define the method by which that impact is mitigated.”

Candidate Steve Valdez

would “plan and manage Elbert County’s growth with smart and proven policies.”

Candidate John Shipper

would “plan and manage growth compatible with a rural lifestyle.”

Put Mr. Valdez and Mr. Shipper in the “managed growth” camp with Mr. Wyer.

All this planning chutzpa begs a great big question. What have managed growth and smart growth planning theories accomplished in Elbert County to warrant such devotion? Answer: nothing – not a damn thing.

Elbert County town centers have minimal economic activity. The Elbert County Fair gets smaller each year. Our road network is in poor condition and does not promote efficient transits of the county. Our schools are producing historically low performance measures, enrollments are shrinking, teachers are leaving, and students are fleeing to Douglas County schools. Commercial enterprises have been closing faster than they are opening, and landowners are prevented from engaging in development that could bring economic returns to the county. Economically, Elbert County is hobbled, and at least four commissioner candidates, apparently, like things that way.

We don’t need their focus on the past, their myths about the rural life style and quality of life that need preserving. This quality of life is not worth preserving. It is poor and getting poorer.  Oh, if you happen to work on or live near one of John Malone’s preserved ranches things might appear to look good, but that’s not because of anything produced here.  The hobbies of one wealthy man don’t constitute a local economy.

We can and must build a much better quality of life with better infrastructure, efficient transportation corridors, desirable schools, businesses that produce goods and services for commercial markets, and opportunities for citizens to participate in economic growth. But these candidates, their myopic visions, the controls they would impose on us, and their master plans, will produce nothing. Elbert County needs opportunities of the sort that county government and Malone’s charity cannot produce. We have to do the hard work ourselves to build these things.

Elbert County citizens need to stop lapping up easy answers from planners. Master plan devotees have had over a decade to prove their worth in Elbert County and they failed miserably. New smart-growth and managed-growth master plans are no more than new lipstick on an old pig.  They are not the answer. There are no easy answers.

———————————————————————————————————–

http://www.schwab4commissioner.com/