(Correspondence, emails in sequence from bottom up)
From: B.I.
Sent: Thursday, June 05, 2008 1:58 PM
To: Robert Thomasson
Subject: RE: Balderdash! Okay maybe, but buncombe, never!
Robert,
It’s not my definitions of words at issue. A regulatory plan would be enforced by coercive county government action similar to the forms of enforcement used against zoning violators. An advisory plan allows for commissioner discretion and evaluation on a case by case basis. The thread of consent back to the voters under the current advisory plan is thin, but we’re witnessing that thread in action right now in this election season. We hold commissioners accountable for their actions at the ballot box.
More disconcerting is your willingness to “wear the mantle” of a form of citizen regulation which has never been consented to or approved by citizens, either directly or through their elected representatives. Your complaint that the current commission abuses its discretion on planning matters seems of little consequence compared to a commission that would make its own regulatory laws to govern citizens.
Notwithstanding a local judge’s misanthropic intervention in this political question, the master plan was never intended to be regulatory. Your upholding it as such is unsound.
Sincerely,
Brooks
From: Robert Thomasson
Sent: Wednesday, June 04, 2008 3:42 PM
To: B.I.
Subject: Re: Balderdash! Okay maybe, but buncombe, never!
Brooks,
First, I would like to apologize for the “head up the butt” remark. You didn’t use that terminology. it was written while I was in the hospital sitting with my brother who is recovering from surgery. The tone of conversation between my brother and me is always fairly adversarial and spirited in nature. I was raised by wolves. When you couple that with a morphine cocktail to loosen his tongue, well let’s just say it was interesting and I am afraid I let a bit of it spill into your e-mail.
Naked coercion? I think you overstate the case a bit here, but if following the guidelines of the master plan is coercive, I would fall under your definition and I would just have to wear that mantle. I do hope that you understand that I have every intention of having real discourse with concerned residents on any contentious issue. I am unafraid of hearing what people want me to know. Again, anything that moves us toward transparency has to be an improvement over what we currently have.
I will not attempt to unravel the twisted path that brought Dred Scott into all of this. If the point is that Judges are not to be trusted, let’s just say that Justice Taney was a Loser ( yes, capital L). The American system of justice is imperfect at best, but they get things right more often than not. The quality of our judges is directly proportionate to the amount of effort (which includes democratic participation) that we put into their selection. At any rate, without people like yourself to thoughtfully analyze their decisions, we can expect that they will continue to move in the direction of their moral compasses.
Your perspective is libertarian in nature. You remind me of Attorney Ric Morgan, a person with whom I also often disagree but still admire. I understand that perspective, I just do not know how to make it work under our current system without inspiring social chaos. Some people actually seem satisfied with handing over their rights to things like HOA’s etc. Suffice it to say, it goes beyond the scope of this thread of emails to reconcile these issues that are the bedrock of your beliefs.
I did not mean to suggest that you were sharing these emails with anybody. What I was saying is that at least with me, you will get an answer, a conversation and an open mind. I am all about transparency, Brooks. If you want to put these up, I am not embarrassed for you to do so. I would like to know on further exchanges if that is what you are considering because the tenor of the letter between two individual adults may not be appropriate for younger ears. I would not say anything differently in terms of ideas, but I might reduce the salt in the recipe so to speak.
As always, I enjoy the back and forth and respect our differences.
Robert
From: B.I.
Sent: Thursday, June 04, 2008 7:52 AM
To: Robert Thomasson
Subject: RE: Balderdash! Okay maybe, but buncombe, never!
Thank you Robert.
First, your basis for concluding what “constituents want” with regard to how a master plan should control has not come from a democratic or republican (small “r”) process. All I’m saying is put it to a vote and thereby make it authoritative. Until the people at large have consented to be governed by the document, you’ve got no authority, only naked coercion.
Second, on constitutional interpretation, the document and its amendments are far more authoritative than the tortured reasoning used by the Supreme Court from Marbury on down as it interpreted the Constitution and added to the Common Law. For example, if it were left solely up to the Court we would still have slavery in this country. See Dred Scott v. Sandford, 60 U.S. 393 (1856). It took a civil war and two constitutional amendments to reverse their work.
Third, you are the one who said “people want[] to know that they helped to craft a document designed to steer development and then actually want someone to…follow it.” Fair enough, but this conveys no standing to enforce or coerce people who have not consented to be bound by the work.
Fourth, I dissent with the court’s post hoc justification in the SVV case. The judge’s decision is not binding on me and therefore I don’t have to “abide” it. Moreover, my 1st Am. right to reasonably and vocally disagree with it, and assemble other people to reasonably and vocally disagree with it, is constitutionally guaranteed. I never said the judge had his “head up his butt.” I said he was wrong to reach a conclusion that was plainly not intended by the laws he cited to reach his conclusion, and sitting down and talking with him won’t change his faulty post hoc ergo propter hoc reasoning in the case.
Fifth, you are not dealing with the “structure and reality of the laws” on the “master plan is regulatory” issue. You are attempting to strong arm a change in the long-standing advisory nature of the master plan through a flawed judicial finding. Highlighting the flaws in the SVV case, or arguing in favor of real property rights and against the coercive usurpation of those rights will hardly lead to the “ruin of the nation.” Tolerating strong-arm tactics, however, will.
I encourage you to pursue your pristine vision of Elbert County, however, when you move beyond persuasion and into coercion, that “gets my hackles up.”
I have only shared these emails with my wife. I have nothing to hide in this discourse and will be glad to post it on my blog.
Sincerely,
Brooks
From: Robert Thomasson
Sent: Tuesday, June 03, 2008 11:51 PM
To: B.I.
Subject: Re: Balderdash! Okay maybe, but buncombe, never!
I guess I am still unsure of why you would be content to give away such broad discretionary powers to the quasi-judicial BOCC that you so distrust. Or is this more a matter of not allowing for a master plan in the first place. If that is the case, then I completely understand and do not have any real objection to your premiss or reasoning. You do participate in these events at their conception. You are a listed member of the Transportation Board’s citizens committee are you not? You must know that when you participate in the system, someone will use that activity as a lynch pin to justify policy. I am perhaps a bit more pragmatic than utopian as you seem to believe that I am. When life deals you a master plan, your constituents want you to follow then I would feel compelled to listen to their ideas before making any substantive decision.
You are very confident in your interpretation of the constitution and especially the 5th amendment. Do you lean toward Hamiliton or Jefferson on these matters of property rights? Just curious. One day I hope to be as confident about my beliefs as are you. In the meantime I will dialogue, probably make decisions (some good and some bad) and allow the community discourse to sway my opinion if it is a more rational argument than my own.
I am always confused why you are so afraid to recognize the the contribution made by people who are involved. This is a participatory democracy if you follow the ideas of Jefferson. I believe that he would expect that people should be obligated to participate in the system to insure it’s health and viability. Reward? I don’t think that I have ever suggested Green Stamps or bonus points or any such thing, but I do believe whether the BOCC takes the community’s advise on matters of development or not, they are compelled to listen. Is your Libertarianism showing a bit here?
You may not trust the Judges verdict on the SVV case, but the decision is his to make. What would you do if you were a commissioner and you lost a similar decision? Take it another step, Brooks. What if you lost it on appeal? Are you saying that it should not be tolerated or that you would not abide by it? Arrogance? That is a curious term for you to use in this situation. I would probably sit down with the judge and try to understand his reasoning before accusing him of having his head up his butt, but that’s just me and my pristine vision of Elbert, abiding by court decisions and all.
I can’t say as I see any resemblance to Kelo in your argument at all. I studied Kelo inside and out and see virtually no parallels to the Elbert County Master Plan. Rail against all regulation that might fetter property rights, eliminate zoning and whatever else you see fit. In the meantime, I will be dealing within the structure and reality of the laws you distrust, because somebody by God better do it or the ensuing chaos might just ruin the nation.
I have no stomach for thugs and crooks. I am wounded when someone who is unable to defend themself (like a child). I look at this in much the same way as a person looks at a tour in the military. You can bitch or serve. I hold no self delusion that I can fix all the problems of Elbert County, but I know that I will work hard and listen. If that were not true, then why would spend so much time reading and trying to understand you and your criticism? Do you and John Metli trade these types of emails? Hope? Suzy?
Robert
From: B.I.
Sent: Thursday, June 03, 2008 8:25 PM
To: Robert Thomasson
Subject: RE: Balderdash! Okay maybe, but buncombe, never!
Dear Robert,
Thank you very much for considering my criticism and responding. At the risk of getting into a wall-wetting contest, I have a few brief comments on your response.
My view of property rights is conditioned by the Constitution’s contractual approach under the 5th Am. as originally intended, that prevents the state from taking property without just compensation. Practically speaking, courts had already gutted much of this constitutional protection before the Kelo decision came along to heap further abuse on the Bill of Rights. I don’t trust courts and I don’t trust the quasi-judicial power of the BOCC.
While we probably agree on this, we disagree on the remedy. Your remedy uses a wholesale public taking by the subjection of all land owners to a non-democratic regulatory conception in order to redress what you perceive to be a taken property right – your vision of pristine Elbert County. A) Your vision of pristine Elbert County is not a property right (regardless of how many people you share it with), and B) even if it were, using a far weightier wrong to redress a taking of that right is clearly a case of two wrongs not adding up to a right. In other words, the way I see it, you are wrong in the first place and you commit an even greater wrong in the second.
And then there’s this point you make that public institutions should offer some sort of reward to those who “stand up and participate in the civic process,” as if one’s choice to volunteer their time in public service entitles them to a reward. I strongly disagree with this too.
And a judge’s opinion that clearly contradicts the intent of the governing body with regard to the plan’s regulatory authority, as if an accidental confluence of separately enacted language could combine after the fact in a post hoc interpretation to become a binding law, is just absurd. This sort of legal arrogance must not be tolerated.
If you want regulations to be authoritative then get them adopted by a group of elected representatives or the voters at the polls. Without the consent of the governed, planning regulation amounts to no more than legalized theft.
Sincerely,
Brooks
From: Robert Thomasson
Sent: Saturday, May 31, 2008 8:41 AM
To: B.I.
Subject: Balderdash! Okay maybe, but buncombe, never!
Brooks,
I have been so busy of late that I must admit that I have not spent enough time reading your web site. I just finished your critique of the Meadow Station event that was briefly up on ABE. First, as a person with an undergraduate degree in English writing, I would like to congratulate you on your alliterative prowess. It is rare that one hits a triple using both “balderdash and buncombe” in the same title. Masterful!
All frivolity aside, I am always intrigued by your perspective. You talk about the left as if we were a cult of utopian engineers. I want to give you a slightly different perspective on just this one issue. I have spent the last four years of my life advocating for property rights. I have lost one dream home to a toll road and do not intend to lose another. There are people who feel passionately about the core issue of property rights that do not want the BOCC to have broad discretionary powers over development. I know because I hear from them all of the time. But just because they would like to see a master plan that is regulatory in nature does not mean they want to impose their social architecture on you. It just means that they are tired of the seemingly cold indifference that is served up to them when they try to stand up and participate in the civic process.
How many times have you or I listened to the likes of J.H. prattle on about the republicans being the “law and order” party. That is as you are well aware an oversimplified means of saying whoever is is in charge of the rules is in fact large and in charge. What I believe is that all of these documents such as the master plan need to have a sunset review built into them so that they require a public to revisit and rethink. Sure it’s extra work, but isn’t it worth it? We live with regulations every day and when they no longer fit the direction that the herd is traveling, well then they need to be changed. You can’t get too upset about people wanting to know that they helped to craft a document designed to steer development and then actually want someone to actually follow it.
You always seem to get your hackles up over terms like “public persona.” Would you not agree that any personality is fraught with moral imperatives, inconsistencies, and quirks? Heck, you work with CPT so I know that you do. Democracy does have a collective personality. It is not always fair or well thought out, but you are able to look at a large group of people and dissect its parts so that you can predict that Elbert County might react differently to an issue than lets say Jefferson County or Denver County. Are there people in that group who would disagree with the trend of a county? Of course there are, but that is why we live in a Democratic Republic, so we can be in the place where we feel most comfortable in our skins. It isn’t perfect by any stretch of the imagination, but it it isn’t an attack on you as a person.
I suspect that you and I are closer on this issue than you might suspect or want to believe. I have never been able to tolerate a bully. I think in large part that is why I spent 25 years in the teaching profession. From reading your work, from knowing about your profession, I believe you are the type that will not stand by and watch as someone gets pushed around. No, you wouldn’t because you are an advocate as surely as am I. This strange dialogue in which you and I engage from time to time is where the balance of a community should be centered. In this day and age of polarized politics, there is no longer the open discussion that I believe is necessary for a healthy society. Brooks, you and I will never see eye to eye on some of this stuff. Neither one of us is perfect. I am by no means an ideologue and neither are you. Somewhere in the middle is probably a pretty nice place to live. And that’s no buncombe!
Robert “Callicrates of the Collective” Thomasson