“Double standards in practice are the unavoidable price of universal standards of principle.” Samuel P. Huntington
With double standards in practice all around us, one must conclude our public agencies are led by principled people, however, no one knows what universal standards of principle guide them.
– 0 –
I sat in for 4 hours yesterday evening with members of the Planning Commission, members of the Office of Community and Development Services, two attorneys and several Elbert County citizens, in an edit review of the proposed Master Plan and Zoning documents up for Planning Commission approval. As my previous posts indicate, I had been laboring under the impression that zoning regulations as governing law, should be fairly objective and definite, and that master plan contents as advisory recommendations, should be where one finds more general development guidelines. Also, I’d been under the impression that the question of advisory rules vs. mandatory regulations was meaningful.
In practice, no such legal theories apply in Elbert County. The whole business is purposefully amorphous. Developers may get a general sense of county expectations from these planning documents, but the last thing the Planning Commissioners seem to want is a definite set of standards. They want to negotiate with developers and horse-trade with everything on the table. Arguments for regulation vs. advice are conceived and applied on an ad hoc basis to fit circumstances as the need arises and the necessity to persuade the BOCC by the Planning Commission develops. Everything is arguable. Standards are flexible. Accountability to regulation is largely, if not purely, subjective. And the whole business is a gold mine of raw material to make work for lawyers.
I’m not saying this is right or wrong, and I’m not saying that the proposed plan and zoning work product isn’t well thought out. The results, however, are full of language that is uncertain, wildly arguable, easily corruptible, and capable of interpretations to fit pretty much any purpose. There are even statements that provide for application denial when all provisions of the zoning laws have been satisfied.
Please pardon my naivete’, maybe this is just the nature of public planning. One thing is for sure though. This body of regulations is not, and apparently never has been a source of protection for property rights and/or individual liberty. One seeking to protect those values will have to rely on other authorities.