Castlewood
Notes on Democracy
“The democratic politician, confronted by the dishonesty and stupidity of his master, the mob, tries to convince himself and all the rest of us that it is really full of rectitude and wisdom. This is the origin of the doctrine that, whatever its transient errors, democracy always comes to right decisions in the long run. Perhaps–but on what evidence, by what reasoning, and for what motives! Go examine the long history of the anti-slavery agitation in America: it is a truly magnificent record of buncombe, false pretenses, and imbecility. This notion that the mob is wise, I fear, is not to be taken seriously: it was invented by mob-masters to save their faces.”
H.L. Mencken, Notes on Democracy, 1926.
Elco Dem Reorg
Elbert County Democrats
Mission Statement
The new Elbert County Democratic Party is building toward the future with the fresh ideas, energy, and commitment needed to help build our local economy, make our county a more desirable place in which to live and work.With Bill Ritter as our Governor and a Democratic majority in Colorado State Legislature, the Elbert County Democrats are poised to work in harmony with the State Party to provide the leadership that Elbert County needs to overcome the current financial and social woes that have resulted from over a decade of single party rule in Kiowa.Elbert County Democrats are determined to establish a positive presence in the local government and the county’s social fabric. The Democrats are committed to providing new solutions to helping Elbert County grow and simultaneously preserving our rural tradition. The Elbert County Democrats resolve to offer county residents a richer alternative to the local Republican Party by means of effectiveness and transparency.
Grades:
A+ for good intentions.
F if they use tax money and government regulation to accomplish them.
Civil War PC
TRUTH-TELLING.
IT is amusing to see how a man in a passion lets the truth escape him. The London Times, which has constantly striven to represent the rebellion as the noble effort of an oppressed people to recover and defend their liberties, and has with perfect success falsified every fact in the history of the war, unguardedly tells the naked truth in a late article written under the consciousness of the extremity of the rebel cause.
It is speaking of the project of arming the slaves at the South, and the Times innocently remarks: ” The South has no reason to doubt that the negro will fight just as bravely in support of the cause of slavery, which is the cause of his master, as he will in the cause of liberty.” And it adds of its particular friends the rebels : ” The man who would submit without a murmur to the impressment of his horses or his crops, may very likely shrink back with a species of superstitious horror from the attempt of his own Government [at Richmond] to deprive him of those very slaves for whom he has already fought a long and desperate war.”
This is as it should be. The Times confesses that this insurrection is an effort to save slavery; and the paper whose asserted pride it is to defend “fair play”—the representative of the aristocratic governing class of England deliberately supports as a manly assertion of an undoubted right the armed effort of a body of men to overthrow a Government, which they do not pretend has ever wronged them, merely for the sake of preserving slavery. Does any really intelligent and thoughtful Englishman wonder that his country is detested by all other nations when he sees that its leading journal, holding a position which no other paper holds in any other country, is guilty of such a crime against human nature and civil society?
We do not for a moment forget the sympathy and generous service of our friends in England who, understanding this war, truly appreciate and despise the course of the Times and its adherents. But the fact of which we speak will help explain to them the indignation which they hear so often breathed against England. They may he very sure that if the mine owners any where in England should revolt against the British Government for the sole purpose of more surely imbruting the unhappy miners, no American statesman in office would applaud their insurrection as the founding of a nation, as Mr. GLADSTONE said of this rebellion ; and if any leading newspaper here, clearly recognizing the object of the insurrection, vehemently supported it, it would be overwhelmed with the derision and wrath of the great body of the people.
Reed, Cole and Ohanian
Health Status Insurance
…said Daniel Hannan
“Prime Minister, I see you’ve already mastered the essential craft of the European politician, namely the ability to say one thing in this chamber and a very different thing to your home electorate. [Read more…]
honeymoon over?
Did Mr. Hill forget the recall phase of Elbert County commissioner terms and jump straight into the next election cycle’s rhetoric? [Read more…]
Aprils Fools
FDR’s blueprint for Obama
“In our day these economic truths have become accepted as self-evident. We have accepted, so to speak, a second Bill of Rights under which a new basis of security and prosperity can be established for all — regardless of station, or race or creed.
Among these are: [Read more…]
Statists…
Statists have launched bloody revolutions followed by violent periods of terror in France, Russia, Germany, China, and elsewhere, always under the flags of democratic populism, Marxism, national socialism, and fascism. For the Statist, revolution is an ongoing enterprise, for it regularly cleanses society of religious dogma, antiquated traditions, backward customs, and ambitious individuals who differ with or obstruct the Statist’s plans. The Statist calls this many things, including “progressive.” For the rest, it is tyranny.
Mark R. Levin, Liberty and Tyranny (New York: Simon & Schuster, 2009), 30.
“Ayers-Dohrn Paradox”
But we ran smack dab into what I call the Ayers-Dohrn Paradox, which is:
Ayers and Dohrn gained fame as violent revolutionaries willing to commit murder and other terrorist acts in order to overthrow the United States. For that, they were greatly worshipped by the far left. Now, in their sunset years, they’re trying to re-cast themselves as “respectable” left-wing professors with “reasonable” opinions, who have long ago sworn off violence. And so, at these events, neither of them ever mentions their violent heyday, except rarely in passing. Instead, they focus exclusively on their current obsessions: Introducing Marxist thought into schools, and closing down the prison system. However, almost no one who goes to see Ayers and Dohrn gives a damn about hearing monotonous lectures on these particular topics: instead, their fans idolize them because of their violent revolutionary past. So at these events, the audience (as in this case) is full of far-far-far-left radicals who came in order to hear overheated revolutionary rhetoric. But instead, what they get is a boring professorial monologue. If Ayers and Dohrn were nothing more than your run-of-the-mill leftist professors, no one would go to their appearances. They’re coasting on their violent reputation, while at the same time trying to distance themselves from it. And that is the Ayers-Dohrn Paradox.
Thanks to Zomblog
Václav Klaus
Bellagio
Bellagio Fountains 50 megs, wmv file.
(I need to work on the red end of the spectrum in these night shots. A lot of the reds wash out into white. Things are much more colorful than these images show.)
Commissioner recognition
Essay contest winners receive commissioner award today.
Commissioners’ Award 18 megs, wmv file.
Spring skies
Solipsism on Display
Solipsism on Display By Jeff Schreiber
Last week, I had to look up the word “solipsistic,” used by a British columnist in describing Michelle Obama’s generosity when UK Prime Minister Gordon Brown and his wife were in Washington, D.C. I’ve never seen a single word so perfectly sum up a woman, or a family, so darned well. [Read more…]
Act I
Lincoln Day Dinner
Republican Women’s Essay Contest Winner for Middle School
The Gettysburg Address and the Birth of a New Nation wmv file, 8 megs
10th Am. Movement
States with legislation affirming sovereignty under the 10th Am. to the Constitution.
Alabama
Alaska
Arizona
Arkansas
Georgia
Idaho
Indiana
Iowa
Kansas
Kentucky
Michigan
Minnesota
Mississippi
Missouri
Montana
New Hampshire
New Mexico
Oklahoma
Pennsylvania
South Carolina
South Dakota
Tennessee
Texas
Virginia
Washington
Every Baby-Sitter’s Nightmare
Go see Every Baby-Sitter’s Nightmare, now running at the Fellowship Hall in Kiowa and put on by the Kiowa High School Drama Club. The acting is wonderful and tight with many strong performances, the story is very engaging, and the production quality is first rate. It’s a great show. Very memorable.
“We Say It Like It Is”
From the 3/9/09 Investors Business Daily, Winner of the 2008 Pulitzer Prize.
End The Spending
Victims Of Socialism
Let The Inquisition Start With Frank
Home A Loan
Obama Can’t Double-Talk Us Out Of This
It is papers like Investors Business Daily and the Wall Street Journal, newspapers who say it like it is, newspapers who remain relevant, who will not follow the Rocky Mountain News into oblivion.
planning doc edits
standards of principle
“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.
Mont Pelerin Society Links
Institute of Economic Affairs, London, UK
Hoover Institution, Stanford, CA
The Heritage Foundation, Washington, DC
American Enterprise Institute, Washington, DC
Cato Institute, Washington, DC
Atlas Economic Research Foundation, Fairfax, VA
Political Economy Research Center, Bozeman, MT
Centre for Independent Studies, Sydney, Australia
Timbro, Stockholm, Sweden
Ratio, Stockholm, Sweden
Manhattan Institute, New York, NY
International Policy Network, London, UK
Café Hayek Blog
Hayek Scholars’ Page
Laissez Faire Books
public “open space”
“The idea of public access has popular and populist appeal. But the reality is that the actual use of any resource—whether pursuant to public access, in the name of state ownership, or pursuant to a private property right—is use by individuals. Those individuals, in whatever capacity they are acting, will have varying incentives with respect to use, management, and conservation of the resource. Experience demonstrates time and again that public access regimes pose significant risks for the long-term management and preservation of the resource.”
Open Lands Plan to become zoning reg
Have you ever heard of the Elbert County Open Lands, Parks and Trails Plan ? I had not heard of it until this week, and I doubt that more than a handful of voters and property owners know about it. Looks like it’s about to become regulatory law in Elbert County.
It’s purely a guess, but I would estimate the value of the takings contemplated by the new regulations discussed in the previous blog item, plus the value of the takings contemplated in the Elbert County Open Lands, Parks and Trails Plan, runs into the hundreds of millions of dollars.
See:
C.R.S. 30-28-106 Adoption of master plan – contents
“The master plan of a county or region shall be an advisory document to guide land development decisions; however, the plan or any part thereof may be made binding by inclusion in the county’s or region’s adopted subdivision, zoning, platting, planned unit development, or other similar land development regulations after satisfying notice, due process, and hearing requirements for legislative or quasijudicial processes as appropriate.”
(Section 3 (a))
And See:
Proposed: EC Zoning Regs Section 16 -PUD New Section “D” Site Design Standards for Residential Developments
“These Design Standards are intended to work in conjunction with the Elbert County Master Plan to help ensure the goals and objectives of the Master Plan are addressed by residential developments.”
(page 1)
And See:
Proposed: Elbert County Master Plan for Housing
“Intent and Purpose of Conservation Communities:
Purpose:
8. To further the goals and policies of the Elbert County Master Plan and the Elbert County Open Lands, Parks and Trails Plan;”
(page 6)
Now Listen:
Thayer and Miller Discussion on regulatory vs. advisory plan
And Listen:
Thayer on Advisory vs. Regulatory Plan
(at close of 2/26/09 Planning Commission Meeting.)
My take:
The majority of planning commissioners and county planners seem to treat this question of a regulatory master plan as de minimus, and perhaps even subject to their own whim.
I don’t think so. I think the above statute is pretty clear on the question, and the construct of housing master plan and PUD zoning modifications they have proposed, and are in the process of conducting public hearings on, clearly fits the terms of the statute.
They say that the proposed regulations are the result of community input and everyone should follow them. Really? What community? How many people were actually heard on the substance of these questions? Was there a vote or a broad-based canvas of the community?
No. This whole thing looks like minority rule by determined believers in property-taking for their own image of the “public good,” and they’re quietly in the process of stealing our rights out from underneath us.
I would say get on the phone right away and tell the planning commission to keep their hands off our property, but the odds are you’d just be talking to a zealot who wouldn’t hear you anyway.
We’re going to need a real public vote in the next election on this question. We’re going to need to put this on the ballot if we have any hope of protecting ourselves from this bunch.
distinction without a difference
Ric Morgan on government “taking” (1 mb, mp3)
According to Mr. Morgan if county regulations require a property owner to give property, in this case land rights or water rights to Elbert County, it is a government taking prohibited by the 5th Am to the Constitution.
As of this writing, the proposed Master Plan section for Housing and the proposed Zoning Regulations for Planned Unit Development, require developers of 5 houses or more to convey 20% to 40% of their property to a third party who is acceptable to the Elbert County Planning Commission, or to Elbert County itself.
“All residential developments which create five (5) lots or more shall be zoned as Planned Unit Developments, Agricultural, or Agricultural-One. A minimum of forty percent (40%) of the “Gross Acreage” of the site shall be permanently dedicated open space, within residential developments, except those developments which are proposing ten (10) acre or larger parcels, which shall have a minimum of twenty percent (20%) open space.”
(Proposed Master Plan, pg. 4)
“8.) Open space should be conveyed to Elbert County, a metropolitan district, or not-for-profit entity, which can demonstrate to the County that it possesses the management capabilities and resources required to administer and perpetually defend the open space, for its intended purpose.
9.) Any land dedicated to Elbert County for regional parks or other open space shall include water rights in a sufficient amount to maintain vegetation and provide adequate fire fighting water supply.”(Proposed PUD zoning regulations, pg. 11)
To the property holder who must give that property away, whether the property goes to Elbert County or to a third party conservation trust of some sort, the conveyance is really a distinction without a difference. In both cases, the property owner is dispossessed of their property as a result of government action.
A government-ordered dispossession of property as a condition of enjoying the economic benefit that attaches to ownership of that property would seem to be a taking regardless of who the recipient is.
Conflict of Interest Issue (< 1mb, mp3)
To add insult to injury, the proposed Master Plan and Zoning regulations have the Planning Commission and the BOCC sitting in judgment over re-zoning applications that may include Elbert County as an interested party (grantee of property rights) in the outcome of such transactions.
world peace?
“Barack Obama set out a few modest goals in his address to both chambers of Congress last night: cure cancer, reform Social Security and Medicare, destroy al-Qaeda, end our dependence on foreign oil, promise education to every American “from the day they are born” to the day they begin work, and “save our planet from the ravages of climate change.”
The One blesses joint session of congress before distributing fishes and loaves.
VP and Speaker enjoy rapture.
politics by any means
Paula Koch at October 8th Planning Commission meeting
“As a citizen I just needed to get on the record, I am tired of paying for the legal fees that have been incurred by the BOCC not following the vision of the master plan and the regulations of this county.”
“[I] would love to see this continued until after new commissioners take office.”
Over the years Ms. Koch’s liberalism has become a familiar fixture in Elbert County politics. As a promoter of regulatory planning, she’s been appointed to a Planning Commission of like-minded regulators.
Conversion of the Elbert County Master Plan to a regulatory document has been effected without a vote of the people and Ms. Koch helped by her encouragement of preventing the last BOCC from adjudicating the question.
The Planning Commission needed an appointment of an individual with a higher regard for private property rights than Ms. Koch has shown. It is unfortunate that Commissioner Schwab passed up an opportunity to appoint someone who would defend all property rights, not just the rights of property holders who have a no-growth prejudice.
regulation without representation
ELBERT COUNTY
Agenda
REGULAR PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING
HEARING ROOM
215 COMANCHE STREET, KIOWA, CO 80117
February 26, 2009 @ 7:00 P.M.
EC Zoning Regs Section 16 -PUD New Section “D” Site Design Standards for Residential Developments
Elbert County Master Plan for Housing
Comments
Last October 8th, the Elbert County Planning Commission intentionally postponed discussion on a set of amendments to the county master plan that had been requested by the Board of County Commissioners, to a date when that Board of County Commissioners would be out of office.
As one Planning Commissioner said at the time, “I would think we should continue it at a later date to where we don’t put it in front of the County Commissioners and have them approve it.”
This was not a decision on the merits of the question based in factual analysis and relevant law. It was a procedural tactic used to enforce a prejudice of the Planning Commission against the Board of County Commissioners elected by the people of Elbert County.
It is the BOCC who carry the voters franchise, not the appointed members of the Planning Commission.
I didn’t go looking for a reason to distrust the governance of the Planning Commission, but there it was, plain as the nose on my face. That night in October, they clearly demonstrated, to applause and apparent jubilation, an ability to supplant the rule of law with their own prejudice.
Members of the Planning Commission consider themselves to be the enforcers of the master plan. Fair enough, however, they have shown that they are not to be trusted with regulatory authority. That authority has traditionally been vested solely in the Board of County Commissioners. These proposed planning documents should be expunged of any language that could be construed to change that precedent.
The problem the county faced with the existing master plan is that legislation was passed, and a court applied the rule to Elbert County, that master plans that reference zoning regulations become, by default, regulatory. The last BOCC attempted to remedy this situation – in effect what became a defect – by expunging references from the master plan to county zoning regs. The Planning Commission impeded the BOCC in accomplishing this.
Now comes a new master plan element that specifically references zoning regulations. If the master plan is to become regulatory, it is a decision that the voters of Elbert County should make. Without voter approval we have regulation without representation.
—————————-
On page 5 of the proposed Elbert County Master Plan Housing, item 3 begins with, “Land for open space shall be dedicated to Elbert County…to administer and perpetually defend the open space for its intended use.”
On page 11 of the proposed Section 16, PUD New Section “D” of the Elbert County Site Design Standards for Residential Developments, item 8 begins with, “Open space should be conveyed to Elbert County…,” and item 9 follows with, “Any land dedicated to Elbert County for regional parks or other open space shall include water rights[.]”
The Planning Commission seeks to have regulatory approval authority over developments that also include granting land and water rights to the county. This is a clear conflict of interest.
Neither the Planning Commission nor the BOCC should have regulatory authority over development transactions where the county has a property ownership interest at stake as part of the deal.
—————————-
On pages 8 and 22 of the proposed Section 16, PUD New Section “D” of the Elbert County Site Design Standards for Residential Developments, regulations are contemplated to prohibit barbed wire on the top and bottom strands of 3-wire fencing. One of the goals of the plan is to preserve the rural nature of Elbert County, and part of that rural nature involves cattle fencing. This regulation would adversely affect acreage available for cattle production and seems counter to the preservation of the rural nature of the county.
———————————-
On page 16 of the Elbert County Master Plan Housing document, item 1 specifies conditions under which the BOCC may consider a variance to the plan. This would unnecessarily limit BOCC discretion.
Similarly, on page 2 of the proposed Section 16, PUD New Section “D” of the Elbert County Site Design Standards for Residential Developments, the Planning Commission seeks to codify it’s practice of last October of unilaterally determining when the BOCC may hear a planning issue by limiting the BOCC from holding a public hearing until the Planning Commission issues their recommendation. Once again, this would unnecessarily impede BOCC discretion in their elected governance of Elbert County.