The purpose of the "Giles Free Speech Zone" is to identify problems of concern to the people of Giles County, to discuss them in a gentlemanly and civil manner, while referring to the facts and giving evidence to back up whatever claims are made, making logical arguments that avoid any use of fallacy, and, hopefully, to come together in agreement, and find a positive solution to the problem at hand. Help make a difference! Email "mcpeters@usit.net" to suggest topics or make private comments.
posted by J. Kendrick McPeters | 5:01 PM
93 Comments:
JANET VANZANT'S RESPONSE:
Mrs. Vanzant threw away my questionnaire, and sent me back my self adressed stamped envelope, folded and unused, inside an envelope stamped at the taxpayer's expense. And all that was in that envelope, besides my unused SASE, was a typed sheet of paper saying:
"I appreciate your questions but it would be inappropriate to answer some with a yes or no. Some of the questions should be brought before the citizens of Giles County and let them decide, how I feel would be irrelevant."
"If anybody wants to know how I feel on a question, all they have to do is come and ask me personally. The people of Giles County should say how they feel not the officials."
"Thank you."
"Janet Vanzant"
GLENN GORDON'S RESPONSE
Mr. Gordon actually took the time and trouble to answer my questionnaire, and his answers are as follows:
1) Will you support the adoption of the Financial Management Act of 1981? Yes.
(2) Will you support the adoption of a wheel tax? I believe the citizens should vote on it.
(3) Will you support the construction of a new school administration building? I think our tax dollars would be better spent, such as on a teacher's raise.
(4) Would you support selling the ambulance service to a private company? Only if it doesn't show a profit.
(5) Should the Hunter-Smith Building be sold? Undecided.
(6) Should The Hunter-Smith Building be repaired and used as a courthouse annex? Undecided.
(7) Do you support borrowing money to build a multi-million dollar complex of ball fields? I need to do more research, but I'm generally opposed to borrowing money.
(8) Would you under any circumstance support an increase in the property tax? I think alternative ways should be explored for revenue.
(9) Do you have any direct or indirect relatives who work for Giles County? Yes. My son works at the county garage on a patch truck.
(10) Will you enforce the Floodplain Zoning Resolution of 1999? That resolution is very burdensome. Nobody has enforced it over the past seven years, and I wouldn't either, unless the federal government demands it.
(11) Will you enforce the Land Use Management (zoning) Plan of 2003? It is so poorly written I don't think it can be enforced.
(12) Will you appoint known anti-zoners to the Planning Commission? Yes, both pro and anti sides deserves a say in the planning commission.
(13) Will you support a Private Act to allow zoning referendums? Yes, the people should be able to vote on zoning.
(14) Will you support the repeal of Floodplain Zoning? Only if the federal people crack down on us, and the people of Giles County want this repealed rather than enforced.
(15) Will you support the repeal of Land Use Management? Yes, and then we should beef up the protection for Giles County by putting teeth in our nuisance law.
(16) Will you petition WKSR to resume live County Commission coverage? No, I think the citizens should do this, not an elected official.
(17) Would you support the withholding of funds from the school system in order to get a line item budget and more responsible budgets from the school director? I think the Financial Act of 1981 would solve this problem.
(18) Will you do all you can to see that citizens are allowed the opportunity to address the County Commission on issues prior to the commissioners voting? Yes.
Well.... there you have it, ladies and gentlemen. Contrast, compare, and make your own decision about which candidate best reflects your views. Then go to the polls, and vote appropriately.
My understanding Mr. McPeters was that you were to answer each question with a yes or a no answer. Why are you allowing Mr. Gordon to elaborate on his answers? Seems contradictory to me. Does anyone else agree with me? Don't get defensive for me asking. I read your questionnare and I didn't misunderstand what you said. YES or NO answers. That is quite the contrary in this candidates response, because as you can see you cannot answer yes or no.
A lot of the questions could not be answered strictly Yes or No. I think the candidates could answer those with a "note". I believe the reason Mr. McPeters decided on this format originally was because it seemed too many candidates didn't want to answer the "essay" questions. This questionnaire that he came up with could be answered Yes or No or Essay. At least then they could all answer without any excuses.
That's a fair question, Concerned.
The fact is, practically every candidate that responded, included a few responses that went beyond yes or no. (As you'll see when I get the Commissioner answers put up.) Looking at Mr. Gordon's answers, the ones that go beyond yes or no either include a yes/no with additional explanation -- see questions 12 and 13 for example -- or they "implicitly" answer yes/no, as is the case with questions 3 and 4. Beyond that, he did state "undecided" a couple of times, and I can't really fault him for that. I probably shoud've made that an option in answering, like on most opinion polls you see.
The bottom line is, you've got to give him some credit for at least answering. I think he took my questionnaire seriously, while the incumbent did not. That being said, if Mrs. Vanzant wants to send me answers that include "undecided" as well as "yes, but..." and "no, but..." then I'll gladly publish them in this thread. In fact, I'll publish anything she sends me. (And yes, she knows about this blog because I told her about it -- and gave a link -- in the questionnaire that I sent her.)
I would like to hear someone say "no!", unequivocally, when a cooked budget with a big tax increase is submitted to the commission. I would like to see someone say "no!" when millions of dollars pop up in a budget amendment immediately after a cooked budget is either approved or voted down, or if it simply mysteriously pops up at year end.
Minimally, the commission should reject the above upon submittal. Logically, charges should be filed.
The County Executive can take a stand on the issue. Let the commissioners stick their feet in the mud if they so wish.
Those comments are only directed at the school system, as run by Jackson & Gonzales. When revenues and funds are grossly misstated, hidden, and shuffled about, it's called fraud. When tax funds are distorted, reclassified, and omitted from public disclosure statements, including requests for property tax increases, we can add falsification of public documents by public officials. It ain't funny!
It's not about denyiny teacher raises, denying education, or never providing more money in inflationary times; it's about a system that must demand honesty, values, integrity, & respect for the economic realities citizens are facing.
A true leader won't have to do it more than once. dm
Well said DM.
Mr Barrett can you honestly say it has been Vanzant not allowing you to speak at the commission meetings rather than it being the commissioners voting not to allow you to speak? I read your blot comments and newspaper letters and I seem to recall you writing previously that commissioners voted not allow you to speak. She cannot control decisions of the commissioners.
Allen Barrett said:
I believe what is needed is a plain, simple old-fashioned debate between the candidates. Ideally a debate where all the candidates are invited would be great but I'd settle for one between the two candidates for County Executive.
Now there's a capital idea! In fact, it's such a good idea, I'm going to set up a new thread, and give both County Exec candidates the opportunity to slug it out, verbally speaking. Anyone else who tries posting there will be promptly deleted. And if this works out, I'll set up debate threads for each of the seven commissioner districts!
Dear Anonymous,
Are you reading the same blog that I am. Where in Mr. Barrett's statement did it say that it was Vanzant that would not let him speak? He stated "Again, if it's the people who should be heard why has there been so much resistance to allowing them to speak during the County Commission meetings? I pasted this comment straight from his and I don't see her name in it anywhere. I bet your a real treat to work with.
God help us if you get elected.
To Tom:
Would you rather see mealy-mouthed Yes men that bow to the Powers that be??
we do not need "yes men or women" in elected office. also, we do not need obstructionist who are opposed to everything for the sake of being different. hopefully the voters will know the difference.
after reading the response from the two canidates it is very clear that Glenn Gordon is by far the best choice.
I don't know how you can say that. He dodged the questions also by answering "udecided."
Anonymous said... #1
after reading the response from the two canidates it is very clear that Glenn Gordon is by far the best choice.
Anonymous said. #2
don't know how you can say that. He dodged the questions also by answering "udecided."
Seems to me #1 is correct, Mr Gordon didn't refuse to answer??? I think undecided is a lot better than NOTHING, I think mr Gordon is the man for the job.
Come on people. The reason Vanzant can't answer qustions is because she can't remember which story she has told to which people. To anti zoners she is anti zoning. To teachers she claims to support education and them but as a teacher I know better. I learned that actions speak louder than words. she claims to be for whatever the person talking to her is for or against whatever the person talking to her is against. that's why she can't answer any questions in public because then people can compare with each other and know how many lies she tells. so stop waiting for her to put anything in writing.
I wish some of you would stop calling for Janet Vanzant's head! She is doing a good job and, in spite of the character assasins out there, got my early vote. And, for the criticism of her statement about her feelings being irrelevant, what is it that you do not understand about that? She was merely stating that, in light of fulfilling and discharging the responsibilities of her office, what she might personally think has to go by the wayside for the greater good of the county. Who are these voices who continually stir up trouble in this county? Have you ever thought about just who the critics are? They assume the ignorance of this electorate and proceed accordingly. Don't fall for that. Go Janet!
Tom....you are exactly right. God help us!
To Teacher:
You may have done the math, but your language arts skills appear lacking. Just an observation.
You know as I was writing rather hurridly with my two children in the background noisily trying to get my attention, I realized somebody like you would probably make a remark about my "language arts skill". At home, like you, I'm sure, I don't always wear matching socks or comb my hair or use proper "language arts skill". Of course, I'm not in front of my students then. Do you have a degree? Do you have anything to do other than check grammer and "language arts" of others on this blog?
Hey, are you the candidate with an undergrad in language arts who is lurking on this site to see if anybody is saying anything about you so you can try to close it down, too? Just a thought.
Perhaps you were in a hurry this time as well. And yes. I have a degree.
Anonymous: July 17,2006 11:06:49 pm
RE: I wish some of you would stop calling for Janet Vanzant's head!
It is so sad that some people have their head so far up (you know what) Mrs. Vanzants, you couldn’t face the truth if it hit you in the face. We are simply posting what we know regarding Mrs. Vanzant’s miss deeds and monstrous LIES at other people expense to make her look good. I just hope for your sake you will face the truth soon.
jo anne gordon said...
Dear Nita P or F?
That is such a stupid question!
Indead that is not a stupid question but a very pertinent one. The majority of the comments made on this blog are from you? Who knows if he really answered the questions or not. Mrs. Vanzant may not have answered yes or no to the questions but at least she was the one who wrote the letter...not someone else.
I hear everyone telling how great Mr Gordon is-- except for Mr Gordon, at least Mrs. Vanzant can talk for herself-- and not have to have someone else do ALL of her ads for her.
Truth is such a transient term. I embrace the truth as I see it....just as you may be doing. I do not let the character assasins out here tell me how to think. Vanzant got my vote and I will continue to support her. By the way, who appointed you (anonymous) the judge? Go Janet!
Dear anonymous of Wednesday, July 19, 2006 8:43:50 AM:
Mrs. Vanzant "can talk for herself" but folks have learned that if her mouth is moving it is usually with an untruth.
Nita:
Why not leave Mrs. Gordon alone? After all what you are trying to do is blow smoke so people can't see the real problem. Let Mrs. Vanzant and Mr. Gordon go head to head. Mr. Gordon can talk in public. Mrs. Vanzant wants to talk one on one so she doesn't have to take a public stand. Every voter with half a brain has already figured that out.
Nita why has your best friend not put anything on her thread that Mr. McPeters set up just for her?
Nita why has Mrs. Vanzant not entered onto the debate site?
Nita why do you criticize Mrs. Gordon for responding on the computer when you are doing the same thing for your buddy? Why?
Yes your comment was out of line. You're not as smart as you think either. I am the writer of the previous comment. I don't care which candidate people vote for.
What I do care about is that the candidates run an honest race. And that word does not seem to exist for your candidate. Tell her to get on the blog and come out to play instead of hiding behind people like you who are trying to keep enough smoke in the air that people can't really see what kind of person your candidate is.
To say nothing is to say everything. Your candidate is saying nothing which speaks volumes!
Mr. McPeters:
Did you honestly think Mrs. Vanzant would respond to your questionnaire after they way you and certain others have talked about her? I would have tossed it into the first trash can available and so would most anybody else under those circumstances. But, it was a no-win situation for her. Had she returned the form, you would have found fault with it. I am glad she didn't play your game!
Anonymous,
I mailed the questionnaire on July 1, and posted the results on July 14. I don't recall my making a negative comment about Vanzant prior to this, and I emphatically am not responsible for what "certain others" have said about her.
Had Vanzant had the cojones to answer my questionnaire, I would have posted her answers, and let everyone come to their own conclusions, the same as I did with everyone else who responded.
Incidentally, there were plenty of qusetions she could've answered "yes" or "no." Like, if she intended to appoint any anti-zoners to the planning commission. Vanzant's excuses for not answering -- the public doesn't care where I stand, etc -- are the epitome of lameness. If that standard of conduct is what you want to see in public officials, then you are welcome to live in the tinpot dictator hellhole that would result if all candidates pulled a "Vanzant" when asked a few questions.
Anonymous, I was not playing a "game," but I'm beginning to think Mrs. Vanzant is-- the "Can I get reelected without taking a stand on anything?" game. Please note that it's not just my questions that she ignored, but the newspapers as well. Do you think Scott Stewart was planning on "finding fault" with her answers, had she bothered to respond to them? Surely not!
Mr. McPeters:
I must disagree with you again for your claiming to be "emphatically" blameless for at least some of the turmoil. Surely, your empathy for people like me who live out in the county and supposedly do not need protection from intrusive businesses is commendable, but I wonder why. You ARE aligned with a group who is determined to get "anti-zoners" into office who will do whatever it takes to overturn something that is NOT hurting anyone...other than those who seek to move here with garbage dumps, adult book stores, rock quarries, and the like. I appreciate your concern for my rights, but they are now protected (to some extent) by the present zoning ordinance. No, it is not perfect and should not be so nit-picky as one so aptly stated. But.....it is far better than having no defense against those who would come here and set up nuisance businesses at will. You cannot call it progress when people lose property value and personal freedoms at the expense of someone or something else. And you know that! And yes, a man has a right to do with his own property as he sees fit, but NOT at the expense of the liberties of his neighbor.
I was born and raised in this so-called tinpot dictator hellhole and am proud of it. I love Giles County and hate to see it torn apart by people who, for whatever reasons, apparently like trouble and strife. Anyone who is unhappy here is free to catch the next bus North. We were doing just fine before all the "intellectuals" now among us succeeded in getting people stirred up and suspicious of anyone who holds a public office. Granted, we are all very imperfect beings, but rather fallible people who make mistakes..but the muckrakers are "johnny-on-the-spot" to point that out. Shame on you. Again, move if you aren't happy. We will miss you for sure.
Anonymous,
I am not a newcomer. I have roots in Giles County that go back before the Civil War, on both my mother's and my father's sides. I was born and raised here, and, yes, I've lived here all my life. So I guess I'm entitled to offer mild criticism of our elected officials.
Yes, if all public officials acted like Janet Vanzant, refusing to inform the public of where they stand on the issues, we would soon be living in a hellhole ruled by a tinpot dictator. People unhappy here are free to vote the incumbents out; not just move.
What gets people "stirred up and suspicious" of public officials, is the unwillingness of said officials to ANSWER IN PUBLIC A FEW SIMPLE QUESTIONS, and not anything I've ever said or done.
In short, don't shoot the messenger.
Anonymous,
Let me answer you the quick way, by re-publishing an excerpt from the speech that I published in the "Muzzled No More" thread:
********************************
The second thing this Committee should be doing, is to develop an ordinance for dealing with noxious uses of land. All you have to do is create a comprehensive list of what uses you wish to restrict, set up objective and possible to meet standards for each restricted usage, and wrap this up in a private act that has to be ratified by public referendum, and which cannot be amended without a public referendum. Take the planner you've hired to write a zoning plan, and put him to work developing a comprehensive set of nuisance abatement rules. Then, once the plan is complete, forward it to the County Commission, and ask that they formally request its passage in the state legislature.
I truly believe that such a land use plan would pass in a public referendum. Not only that, but a plan passed by referendum would be much more difficult for anyone to attack in the courts. And a plan that consisted of nothing but strict but attainable standards would be far more likely to offer real protection, than ANY zoning plan this Committee can concoct.
Why is that? Because the essence of zoning is arbitrariness.
Two identical pieces of land lay side by side. One is zoned residential, and the other is zoned commercial. What justifies such an arbitrary distinction? Nothing more than the fact that a majority of County Commissioners chose to use a blue crayon on the map of lot A, and a red crayon on lot B. In other words, nothing more than the arbitrary WHIM of a handful of amateur politicians.
The law is supposed to protect people -- including property owners -- from the exercise of arbitrary will. The fact that zoning maps are based on nothing more than arbitrary will accounts for the fact that zoning restrictions are routinely shot down in the courts. Do a little research on the subject of zoning, and you will see that I am speaking the truth.
Now let us take a moment, and do a little thought experiment. Suppose that Giles County never adopts zoning, and never adopts a private act restricting noxious uses of land. Would that mean that the county was powerless to stop intrusions by companies wishing to build quarries and incinerators and the like? No, as a matter of fact, that wouldn't be the case. Every county government has a near unlimited power of eminent domain, and this means that noxious uses of land can be stopped in their tracks, by the county simply condemning the property, paying a fair market price for it, and then seizing it from the would-be noxious user.
It's still not too late to do this to stop the new rock quarries, I'd like to emphasize as strongly as possible. Eminent domain condemnation has no grandfather clause--- it works anytime, anywhere, for any reason.
********************************
I first published this three years ago, and my plan is still workable. Other counties in Tennessee deal with nuisances by Private Act (eg Carter County and junkyards) and we could too. There are tremendous advantages in doing it this way-- it would take a majority referendum vote to modify the plan so that it dictates what colors houses can be painted, rather than the simple majority vote of Commissioners that is required with zoning -- and it really would be harder to strike down than a conventional zoning plan.
Essentially, I'm talking about implementing "performance zoning" of nuisances by means of a voter approved private act. And then that would be backstopped by the county's power of eminent domain.
And FYI, garbage dumps are already under the county's control by means of the Jackson Law. No need to worry about them.
Finally, the LUMP is not protecting you "to some extent" because it is not being enforced. And that's a good thing, because the LUMP is totally worthless-- and that is not being nit-picky. If you read page 9 of the LUMP, you will see that, in the FAR zone, "all uses are permitted except those prohibited below." Then, after a brief listing of things like junk yards and landfills, you will encounter "(h) Any other use, however construed, that us not included in uses listed above." In other words, by literal reading of the law, EVERYTHING is prohibited in FAR, including Forestry, Agriculture, and Residences! Maybe this is not what was intended, but it's what is written in the plan, and that's what counts.
Ignore what Roger Reedy says about the LUMP; read it for yourself, and see what it actually says and how it actually works. And then perhaps you will join me in demanding a voter approved private act, to deal with nuisance uses of land. It would offer orders of magnitude more protection than the LUMP; believe me on that!
Mr. McPeters:
I already agree with you in principle that the present plan is not perfect and that IT should not be so nit-picky. And I would agree with you that a plan that would simply designate what busineeses may or may not locate in the county would be a good idea. But I do not think it would EVER pass a referendum vote. Do you really think it would?
And.......as for Roger REEDY...I personally know him to be a man of integrity who would not resort to underhanded tactics. Why would he, and what could he gain by forcing the "LUMP" plan down people's throats? Believe it or not, he is troubled by the fact that some people have been led to think he was not acting in the best interests of the county. By the way, that is entirely true of the other commissioners who put the present though imperfect plan into place.
Now, on a final note, let me say that I am glad that you and I have found at least a common thread of agreement as to what would constitute a workable zoning plan. Which brings me to conclude that perhaps we both want what is best for the county. And, I don't want anyone telling me what color shingles to put on my house either. In all honesty, I don't think anybody but me would care.
If Mr. Reedy "is troubled by the fact that some people have been led to think he was not acting in the best interests of the county," why doesn't he go public with his concerns and set the record straight? Many people have formed an opinion of him based on his actions regarding the LUMP. Perhaps he should do something change our opinions.
Jo Anne,
You go girl!!!
To Anonymous:
RE: Roger Reedy
It is a shame that you judge Roger so harshly. Do you personally know him? I am certain that you don't, because you wouldn't feel that way if you did. Do you think the church he attends would allow him to serve as an elder were he the demon you portray him to be? I think not.It is shameful that people allow a handful of sore losers to tell them how to think....and they are apparently successful. Well, thank God for good men like Roger Reedy, in spite of people like you who do not know him and yet would judge the intents of his heart. Shameful indeed!!
As for his going "public", I do not see that happening. Why should he? And no, many people have formed an opinion of him because of that same little group of sore losers who are determined to reverse zoning. The water is already poisoned if it should EVER go to a referendum vote. Yes, people form opinions based upon what they perceive as fact. Would you agree?
To the writer of the previous comment entered on Friday, July 21, 2006 9:04:01 AM,
The blog on Thursday, July 20, 2006 8:55:54 PM states: "Believe it or not, he is troubled by the fact that some people have been led to think he was not acting in the best interests of the county." All I'm saying is that if Mr. Reedy is so troubled, why doesn't he explain his intentions so that people will better understand where he's coming from so as to NOT form a negative opinion of his actions. Many "good men" have done unfavorable things, even church elders. Conversely, many people who DON'T attend church do favorable things. So I don't use people's church habits as a character trait when forming opinions.
As for zoning EVER going to a referendum vote, it should have gone there in the first place. Would you agree?
By the way, when you call people "sore losers who are determined to reverse zoning," are you not judging them, or at least forming an opinion of them based on what you perceive they are determined to do? Some of the 'sore losers' of whom you speak may be church elders. Shameful indeed!!
To Anonymous once again:
Yes, there is good and bad in everyone, to which I would agree with you. And no, I am not judging the motivations of this little group. The facts speak for themselves. Just look at what they say and do; the proof is in the pudding. They are so bitter about "zoning" and are determined to turn it around if they can. And speaking of a referendum vote, everyone knows full well that the lay voter out there would vote it down. The water has been poisoned by people like you who use scare tactics to persuade people against whe best thing county private property owners have had in a great while. People were told that they couldn't even put shutters on their homes without permission. That is almost laughable.
The zoning issue should have been resolved many years ago, but, alas, the commissioners at the time were too cowardly to do what was right for the people. I truly believe that is what you guys dislike the most about Mr. Reedy and the others who got a plan enacted. Could it be that you resent the courage these men displayed? It's not always easy to take a stand against critics, but they did. And furthermore, those in power sometimes have to do things that may seem unsavory to some for the benefit of the majority. Sometimes we need to be protected from our own neighbors! What is wrong with homeowners or farmers out in the county having some safeguards against noxious businesses moving in right beside them and thus destroying their property value? Would you want it to happen to you?
I have a friend who lives near the rock quarry on Christian Road. His "neighbor" leased his land to the quarry folks and kept it a secret until it was a done deal. But, there was nothing the residents could have done to stop it anyway, because the county had no restrictions at the time. He owns an old Chevrolet Camaro (a show car) that he can't even drive out to the highway for fear of having it damaged by flying gravel and rock. Would you agree that his rights meant nothing to these people? What if that were you who lived there and owned that expensive show car? I think you would just keep it garaged and hope for the best like he does. Shame on you for not having empathy for those so victimized in the name of progress!
Excuse me, but I am not trying to scare anyone. I am just smart enough to see what the pro-zoners have done.
'Poisoned water' has nothing to do with this issue. Yes, the lay voter would vote down the referendum if given a chance today. We wouldn't do so because, as your analogy implies, our minds have been corrupted by anti-zoners. 78 % of us voters have already told the commission that we are opposed to zoning. So the pro-zoning commissioners brought in the LUMP through the back door, thinking that no one would notice that it's virtually the same zoning plan that overwhelmingly failed in 1991.
Giles County voters have a right to vote on zoning. A right of the people.....you know, one of the principles upon which this country was founded. The county commissioners of many years ago, whom you so boldly called cowards, understood this principle and allowed the voters to exercise that right. They were not cowards. And there you go again judging people by calling them names. Did you know all of those commissioners personally? I doubt it, so why do you call them cowards? Some of them may even have been church elders. You know that position that their church members would not have appointed them to if they were too cowardly to do what was right?
There is nothing wrong with protecting homeowners or farmers out in the county. I myself own a nice size farm out in the county and a d*** fine home to go with it, but a nuisance ordinance would protect it just as well.
Your friend's old Camaro could be just as damaged by a careless driver crashing into it. Zoning has nothing to do with his not being able to drive his car. If I had that expensive show car, I probably wouldn't drive it anyway; if it were that precious, I'd probably haul it around in a padded trailer.
What makes you think I don't have "empathy for those so victimized in the name of progress?" Once again, you are being judgmental. You haven't a clue what I feel for other people. I detect a hint of animosity from you toward me because I do not agree with your opinion on zoning.
I will continue to oppose zoning and anyone who tries to quell my right to vote on it or any other important issue.
Anonymous of Thursday, July 20, 2006 8:55:54 PM:
"And I would agree with you that a plan that would simply designate what busineeses may or may not locate in the county would be a good idea. But I do not think it would EVER pass a referendum vote. Do you really think it would?"
Yes, I do... if the plan was drawn in a manner that was strictly limited to zoning out REAL nuisances, and didn't consider new "smokestack" industry to be a nuisance, as the LUMP does. I myself would vote for a plan that was (1) limited as described above, (2) included tradable protection rights, and (3) was part of a voter approved private act, which means that the plan couldn't be amended without action from the state legislature AND another referendum of the people.
The problem isn't that the anti-zoners won't accept a modest and limited protection plan. The problem is that the zoners want to go beyond mere protection, into such territory as chasing off all new industry, because they are opposed to growth on principle.(The James Miller zoning plan was described, by its supporters, as a "present use only" plan fifteen years ago. Now that it has been transmuted into a LUMP, that no-growth aspect of it hasn't changed in the least.)
And.......as for Roger REEDY...I personally know him to be a man of integrity who would not resort to underhanded tactics.
Well, I admit he's a likable guy. He was always nice to me, other than the deal with denying me an opportunity to speak. But the fact remains that he was the one who dusted off an old zoning plan, and decided to call it a LUMP. He even directly stated that the LUMP was not a zoning plan, which is a lot worse than a "little white" lie, if you know what I mean. He also repeatedly misrepresented how the LUMP would work, by ommitting the fact that NOTHING could ever be built in Giles County in the future, without getting permission from a majority of county commisioners. Did he not understand how rezoning works in the state of Tennessee? If so, he is not competent to hold the position he's in, with his fingers stuck in every slice of the zoning pie. Or maybe he was simply flat out lying, in order to trick the more gullible commissioners (who certainly know nothing of the state zoning law!) to vote for the LUMP. Either way, I can't see holding Reedy up as an exemplar of the way a commissioner ought to be.
Why would he, and what could he gain by forcing the "LUMP" plan down people's throats?
In a word, POWER. He now holds one-eleventh of the power to control all uses of property in the FAR zone, which is all of rural Giles County. Anyone that wants to build a minimarket, a church, a private school, or even (if the plan was enforced to the literal letter) a home... has to come begging before Reedy and his cronies for PERMISSION. Where once people had the RIGHT to use their property as they saw fit, now they only can do what they get PERMISSION to do, from the county commission. That's a big change, and it's a big motivation to support zoning-- if you happen to be a member of the commission.
Believe it or not, he is troubled by the fact that some people have been led to think he was not acting in the best interests of the county.
I think he should forget about THAT, and be troubled instead by the fact that his lies for political gain have damned him to Hell's flames, should he die without repenting. (And as his sins were in public, so too should be his repentance, in my humble opinion.)
By the way, that is entirely true of the other commissioners who put the present though imperfect plan into place.
The other commisioners, for the most part, were and are brainless marionettes being puppeteered by Roger Reedy. If they are troubled by the public's perception of them, they should cut their strings, and start thinking for themselves.
Now, on a final note, let me say that I am glad that you and I have found at least a common thread of agreement as to what would constitute a workable zoning plan.
It looks that way. But I've been promoting this sort of thing for over three years. I mailed Reedy a thick packet of material on "Performance Zoning" long before the LUMP was "finished." My website, which I haven't updated in the last three years --
www.kendrickmcpeters.com
-- includes several links to papers on Performance Zoning, which are well worth reading.
I even authored a "petition for amendment" to change the LUMP into a crude but workable performance zoning plan, but Reedy and the others on the Planning Commission simply ignored my petition, and refused to bring it to a vote.
So, I've been on board for ages. I recognize that, until Giles County has some kind of WORKABLE protection scheme, that the drumbeat for zoning will never go away. And my main issue has always been that I think the people should have a direct (referendum) say in the zoning plan, to keep it from growing out of control.
Which brings me to conclude that perhaps we both want what is best for the county.
I'm sure that some pro-zoners are sincerely motivated by a desire to keep out noxious industry. Likewise, most anti-zoners care about the good of the county, and simply want to see us protected against noxious zoning rules passed by the County Commission, as well as noxious uses of land. There'e probably a lot more common ground than either side realizes!
Kendrick,
you mentioned tradable protection rights. what is that? thanks.
Anonymous,
Thanks for the question. It will take a bit of space to explain, so bear with me.
Let us imagine a zoning plan that only dealt with real nuisances, such as junkyards, incinerators, rock quarries, and strip joints.
Okay, the first part of the ordinance would list all of the nuisances, and give a very detailed, carefully thought out definition of each use.
The second part would be an enumeration of reasonable, attainable standards for each use to be required to meet. For example, an incinerator might be required to locate on non-flooding land, on a site so many acres big, and located a certain distance away from any residence, school, hospital, etc. These are called performance standards, and the theory is, if a business wanted to locate here, they would simply have to prove they met the standards, and they'd be allowed in. (No political football of having the Commission vote on all potential land uses, under this system.)
The third part of the ordinance would give a "radius of impact" for each regulated use. And this is where the tradable protection rights come into play. It's kind of a "plan B" for approving a new noxious industry. The way it works is, each use would have a distance associated with it-- say five miles for an incinerator, and 2000 feet for a strip club. What would happen is, if a company could get a written waiver signed by ALL the property owners encompassed in the "radius of impact," then the noxious industry would be allowed to locate in the county without meeting the siting criteria (other than, say, some criteria that are required for basic health reasons) contained in the zoning plan. In effect, the people most directly impacted will have "traded away" their "right to be protected" from a noxious use in their neihborhood. Why would they sign a waver? Quite possibly because the company wanting to site a noxious use near them, has paid them cold, hard cash for their signing of the waver.
Under this system, a company can locate anywhere they want to, providing they either (1) meet the county's clear and objective siting standards, or (2) get waivers fromn EVERY landowner in the region impacted by the proposed noxious use.
Wrap this ordinance up in a Private Act that has to be ratified by referendum, and we'd have a very, very hard to defeat system for protecting Giles County from noxious uses of land. Best of all, it couldn't be modified into something oppressive, without an act of both houses of the State Legislature, AND majority ratification in a public referendum. We'd be protected both from bad stewards of land, and bad commissioners who want to micro-manage our lives.
Hopefully, if we can sweep Roger Reedy and some of the other debris from the Commission, we can get a system like this written and made into law. (Of course, that means that we'll need a little balance on the Planning Commission, which is one of the good reasons to vote for Glenn Gordon.)
Thanks for the question, anonymous. I probably shouldn't have mentioned tradable protection rights without first explaining the concept. But I guess I was in a bit of a hurry...
Anonymous,
Here's an example, in Tennessee, of using a Private Act to accomplish what would traditionally be done by zoning.
http://archives.starhq.com/html/localnews/0403/042303CleanUp.html
Note that the junkyard ordinance can't be changed without action from the state legislature-- a great advantage over "changed by 11 commissioners on a whim," IMHO.
To: Kendrick I would first like to say thank you for the most informative explanation on "Tradable Protection Rights". Also, to anonymous, VERY GOOD QUESTION!! I too have a question which may sound a bit silly to some. If the zoning plan were to be implemented in the future, would it still be of benefit to the people, such as the ones who live close to the rock quarry? I really do understand how they must feel. However, was the rock quarry not already established on that site when most of the residents decided to build there? It seems to me that you are one of the few people left in this county who has both knowledge AND commen sense. I realize that sites such as landfills and junkyards are a nuisance but we have to put them somewhere and the land owners, just as we all do, have a right to do so. I can see how the "Tradable Protection Rights" would be of benefit to all involved in these unfortunate but now very common situations.
The rock quarry on Christian Road moved in just a couple of years ago. The residents had no idea this was happening until it was too late. But again, at the time, there was nothing to stop it from coming anyway. Ask those homeowners how they feel about zoning.
Anonymous,
You're most welcome, and thank you for finding value in my longwindedness.
In answer to your question, I'm afraid that even my proposed private act zoning plan could not help anyone who has a rock quarry near them. That is because these quarries now have a vested "grandfather" right.
You ask "was the rock quarry not already established on that site when most of the residents decided to build there?" I imagine you're thinking about the rock quarry out by the airport. Oddly enough, that quarry has operated for at least thirty years, and I can't recall hearing any of the doom and gloom comments being made about it. Not only that, but the land out in that region is some of the highest valued in the county, which runs contrary to the "party line" about how rock quarries wreck property values.
As you say, people get all upset at things that the county needs, such as landfills and rock quarries. We could, I suppose, have a National Rock Quarry, located in some empty spot in Nevada, but the energy costs of hauiling rock from the National Quarry, to where it is needed, would be through the roof. Nobody could afford to build a road, or pour a concrete slab, if all the rock was trucked in from Nevada.
So, obviously, we have to have local rock quarries. Equally obvious, no matter where they are located, somebody will complain about them. As you say, creating a plan that used "Tradable Protection Rights" would go a long way towards easing the tensions that go hand in hand with siting controversial, but necessary, businesses.
Anonymous said:
But again, at the time, there was nothing to stop it from coming anyway.
Not so. Eminent domain condemnation and purchase could shut down every rock quarry in the county, including the Rogers Group quarry out by the airport, which has been operating since the dawn of time. I informed both Janet Vanzant and various county commissioners AND I published on my website for all to read, the fact that condemnation would stop the new quarries in their tracks. My suggestions obviously fell on deaf ears, even though, at a zoning meeting, the hired gun "planner" admitted that I was making a workable suggestion.
Funny how commissioners are "compassionate" enough to pass a zoning plan that takes away the property rights of every Giles County landowner, but not compassionate enough to put a stop to a problem that was hurting a handful of landowners, huh? And at the time, before they commenced blasting, the fair market value wouldn't have been all that much to pay. But nooooo... just taking the land and stopping the quarries in their tracks wouldn't have given Roger Reedy and his cronies the land control and people control that they salivated after.
Ask those homeowners how they feel about zoning.
If I recall correctly, these homeowners lobbied, not for the all encompassing LUMP, but for passage of Lincoln County's "Special Impact" zoning plan. The Lincoln plan is nowhere near as intrusive as the LUMP, and does not zone out good paying (ie, large) industry, as the LUMP does. It also doesn't demand that new churches and schools come to the County Comnmission, hat in hand, and beg for permission to build on land they have lawfully purchased. (But Reedy's LUMP does!)
So, not all zoning is created equal. The LUMP is a botched job that was never even finished, and it would offer about as much protection as wet tissue paper, in the event it faced a court challenge. (I should know; I'm challenging it in court right now.)
But the Lincoln County "Special Impact" plan has already faced a court challenge -- brought on by a quarry company -- and it prevailed.
So, I would suggest a three step plan to protection with maximum freedom for Giles County land owners. Step one: put the LUMP out of its misery, and repeal it. Step two: pass a clone of the Lincoln plan, with a one year sunset clause tacked on to the end. Step three: hire a lawyer who understands land issues to write the nuisance zoning plan with tradable protection rights that I've discussed, and pass it as a private act, empowered by referendum.
Do all this, and we'll be as safe as is legally possible. And as free to do anything non-noxious, as we ever were.
Go ahead, anonymous. Ask the landowners out by the new quarries if they like my three step plan. I'll bet they find it worthy of support.
And should that referendum fail,
we would be back to square one...with no protection whatsoever???? Please explain. Thanx.
Anonymous asked:
And should that referendum fail,
we would be back to square one...with no protection whatsoever???? Please explain. Thanx.
Well, first of all, I'm confident that, if the plan was written appropriately (see description above) it would not fail. I don't believe the constituency for strip clubs, and rock quarries, incinerators and the like, would possibly equal 51% of the vote.
Honestly, if the plan being voted on was nothing but protection from a few clearly defined nuisances, and it couldn't be changed without action by the State Legislature, along with ANOTHER referendum... then I think the decision to support it would be a "no-brainer" for most voters. People who oppose zoning are not opposed to "protection," -- they are against putting enormous, arbitrary power into the hands of the county commission. As long as the ultimate say remains in the hands of the voters, I believe a nuisance control plan would be quite popular.
Second... it's not true that without zoning, we have no protection whatsoever. We have the ultimate in protection via the process of condemnation and seizure. Yes, it costs "fair market value," but most zoning plans cost money to implement, so pick your poison.
Beyond that, if someone would put teeth in the nuisance law adopted three years ago, it would be a great step forward in protection. And, as I've stated, the Jackson Law gives the County Commission a veto over garbage dumps. So, even if, for some strange and mysterious reason, the Private Act referendum failed... we still wouldn't be "with no protection whatsoever."
Incidentally, the reason I propose the sunset clause be placed in the "Special Impact" zoning plan, is to give the sluggish Planning Commission a positive motivation to work hard, and get the "perfect" plan I've described written and sent to the state for passage. A "drop dead deadline" would also encourage a "yes" vote in the ratification referendum.
So, in a nutshell, I don't think there's anything to worry about. (Partly because I've discussed this "Private Act" plan with many of my anti-zoning friends, and they all say they would vote in favor of it.) Most "anti-zoners" are far more dedicated to the idea that the public should have a vote on zoning, than they are opposed to protection from nuisances. As my proposal locks in control by the voter, it should easily clear the hurdle of getting 51% of the vote. I'd be willing to bet on it (though not until after I'd read the final plan passed by the state legislature).
To Kendrick
I hope you will post this...will you? Did you all know that the present zoning plan stopped a rock quarry from locating in the old mines area just recently? hmmmmmm.
Anonymous said:
I hope you will post this...will you?
No. Actually, you are the one in charge of posting. I don't approve or reject any comments before they go on the blog. When you click on the blue "Login and Publish" button, up your comment goes, for everyone to read.
Did you all know that the present zoning plan...
I can't help but note, with some amusement, that, before it was passed three years ago, this plan was ALWAYS, by everyone "in the know" -- including most County Commissioners, the County Lawyer, County Exec Vanzant, and the local media -- called a "Land Use Management Plan." But now that it's been crammed down our throats, its okay to call it what it always truly was, a zoning plan.
...stopped a rock quarry from locating in the old mines area just recently? hmmmmmm.
Hmmmm, indeed. It wasn't very long ago, that the County Attorney said to my lawyer, Stanley Pierchoski, "why are they going through with this? [ie, pursuing a lawsuit against the LUMP] The plan isn't being enforced."
Yet, here you are saying that it "stopped a rock quarry." What we have is a conundrum. How could a LUMP that is not being enforced "stop" anything? My guess is that this story is just an urban legend, perhaps started by the pro-zoners. Until I see that someone applied for a state permit to quarry rock, and then decided not to quarry, because the LUMP provided an impediment, then I'll tend to take this story with a rather large grain of salt.
But maybe it's the truth. Maybe somebody thought about starting a quarry, heard about the LUMP, and gave up. That basically means that the would be quarry owner is a dummy, and probably too poor to hire a decent lawyer. Perhaps the unenforced LUMP can scare off undercapitalized morons, but I wouldn't bet the farm that the next "noxious industry" threat comes from someone who fits that description. And a smart person, with a little money, can tear the LUMP to shreds.
Tell me, anonymous, are you opposed to repealing the LUMP, and replacing it with the "Special Impact" zoning plan passed a few years ago in Lincoln County? Unlike the LUMP, that plan would actually provide us with some measure of protection.
So laughable that you would deny that!
go to The Answers Are In, Part Two and read about Terry Hughes who is a canidate for district two commissioner.
Anonymous, Monday, July 24, 2006 8:46:37 AM
So laughable that you would deny that!
Okay. Why don't you stop laughing for a moment, and post some EVIDENCE (other than hearsay) that the unenforced LUMP has "stopped a rock quarry?" Is that asking too much, or do I have to take your claims on faith?
Don't take my word for it....ask a commissioner......simple as that.
Kendrick...are we splitting hair about terminology....zoning or land use management? Your concern and compassion for private property owners who live out in the county is noted.
Poisoned water would have EVERYTHING to do with a referendum vote on zoning or LUMP..whichever you prefer to call it.
Anonymous said:
Don't take my word for it.... ask a commissioner...... simple as that.
Gee. I'm sure there's no source more unbaiased or honest, than a pro-zoning commissioner, running for re-election after cramming the LUMP down our collective throat.
No thanks. I think I will ask for some more definitive proof that this MIRACLE -- an unenforced plan "stopping a quarry" -- has occurred. If you have evidence to back up this commissioner fairy tale, then please post it. Thanks.
Anonymous said:
Kendrick...are we splitting hair about terminology....zoning or land use management?
No, we aren't splitting hairs. THe damned LUMP is, always was, and always will be, a zoning plan. It should've been called a zoning plan from the very beginning. But there was a DELIBERATE ATTEMPT TO DECEIVE by the fork tongued Roger Reedy, and the other pro-zoners (including Vanzant) gleefully went along with this blatant LIE.
I don't see this as a trivial matter. If the LUMP had been honestly advertised, it would never have gotten enough votes to pass.
Your concern and compassion for private property owners who live out in the county is noted.
I intend to "live out in the county," someday, if I live long enough. When I move there, I want the place to still be free. And yes, I'd like the rural part of Giles County to be protected, to the greatest extent legally possible, from real nuisances. But that would mean repealing the LUMP, and replacing it with something sensible. Which I guess you are opposed to, right?
Anonymous said:
Poisoned water would have EVERYTHING to do with a referendum vote on zoning or LUMP..whichever you prefer to call it.
Oh, what utter nonsense!
Poisoned water comes under the jurisdiction of the federal and state Environmental Protection Agencies... NOT some two bit local zoning plan. It doesn't matter whether we're zoned, or not; the EPA simply doesn't allow water poisoners to get away with their crime. Not these days!
The "poisoned water" was not to
have been taken literally as water. I think you need to be more concerned about getting your blood pressure up. By the way, who was paying you to run those full page ads against zoning years ago?
Mr McPeters
Perhaps you should be appointed county mayor since you have all the answers. Then you could, at your discretion, get rid of those who would disagree with you and replace them with the "smarter and more progressive" people of your own choosing. Would you be happy with that?
Why did Mrs. or is it Miss Vanzant tell the commission that the county was out of compliance with the State just a couple of weeks ago and now today on WKSR's website under Today's News, she's stated that we're not and never have been? Who didn't get all their facts before the meeting??? Hope Glenn is going to be more thorough, because it looks like he may win the election. I voted for him anyways even though I have never spoke to the man in my life.
it appears vanzant has a problem keeping the facts straight on this and several other items, or is it a problem with her not being able to tell the truth on anything.
Re compliance:
Giles Co WAS out of compliance as of June 30th thats why the commission voted to remove $25,000 from tax assessors budget in order for money to go toward paying state for work they would have to do. The mystery is why was McGill able to send in to state the required number of assessments he had not completed since June 2005 and supposedly was able to bring things up to snuff in 2 weeks. Could he perhaps have a close friend in Nashville? He was somehow able to "catch up" with the jeep not even moving from the parking lot!
No, Mr. Mcpeters, you and your cronies (a term you love to use) have done a masterful job advertising the LUMP, portraying it as something evil and destructive. But tell me sir.....what harm has it done to anyone? I have never been able to get any of you to answer that for me. The only thing I hear from your side is that people lose their freedom. How so? Please explain.
That same negative advertising is precisely why most people would not vote in favor of ANY zoning plan in this county...even if it was legal to have a referendum vote. But you already know that, don't you?
It saddens me the way the people on this blog continue to stoop to the lowest level. I've seen nothing but finger pointing and he said she said crap. The headings on the topics look informative and then when you click on them they quickly dissolve into mudslinging with very little discussion of real issues taking place.
Why is that? I will tell you what I think it is....I think that most of the people on this blog have no interest in real issues. I believe that many people are using this space to air personal grudges without the inconvenice of owning their statements. I have seen poor behavior exhibited by supporters of both Mr. Gordon and Ms. Vanzant and I can't believe how far you have gone. It's not to late guys, you can do better.
When we have to ask, what harm is there in giving our freedom to someone else; "freedom" is lost". If we are all free, there is no need to give or take anything. When freedom of choice is given to someone else, they will chose for you and you will be subject to their will.
The penalties of neglect are fees, taxes, and new regulations on your actions and choices. Next is the creation of bureaucracies that grow like kudzu. You will not be asking your neighbor. You will be going to a bureaucrat on bended knee with cash in one hand and expensive plans in the other.
Some can't grasp why millions of Americans fought and died to defend freedom choice. They cower when threatened with embarrassment or punishment by those "in charge". Think about a commission that voted to reduce citizen representation as a final act of defiance, a handful of commissioners walking out of a meeting to avoid hearing citizens speak, or a school board jailing two upstanding citizens for daring to speak to them! We do not need another set of laws and regulators to further deny free rights that have survived centuries! don m
I'm not airing a personal grudge about ANY candidate. But I AM going to ask a question such as I did about J.Vanzant stating we were out of compliance, then saying we never were. If you know you're going to view mudslinging why click on this blog to begin with? Maybe you can't help yourself?
Question for Kendrick McPeters...
Would you lobby for a zoning plan that was to your liking as hard as you have against the one presently in place? I honestly want to know and am not attempting to be critical.
To the pro-zoners:
If you don't like Kendrick's stance on Giles County's zoning issue, start your own blog site and lobby your case. Let your supporters blog their hearts out. Otherwise, quit bashing Kendrick for the service he is providing for those of us who support him.
Kendrick is obviously a well-spoken individual who is not afraid of confrontation so I think he can fight his own battles
Anonymous said:
The "poisoned water" was not to have been taken literally as water.
Yeah, I realized that after you corrected me. Truth be told, I forgot that this metaphor had been used earlier in the thread. Sorry.
I think you need to be more concerned about getting your blood pressure up.
Perhaps. Let's just say that, when I saw what I thought was another silly "without zoning we face doom and gloom" comment, I got annoyed pretty quickly. Again, sorry.
By the way, who was paying you to run those full page ads against zoning years ago?
Well, first of all, I haven't had much experience with "full page" ads. I did help write (and typeset and lay out) two full page ads for David Ault (who was running against Joe Fowlkes at the time) back in 1992. He paid for those ads himself, from the money he earned as a welder.
Before those two ads, I did help the late Allan Wood wage war against zoning, and he spent a LOT of money on ads. (But they weren't full page ads, so far as I remember.) Mr. Wood paid for these out of his savings, and with money he raised by "passing the hat."
I myself have put in two ads of about a third page in size-- one in 1994, and one a week ago. Also, I ran a number of fairly smallish ads three years ago, attacking the LUMP. I paid for all these ads by publicly begging for money. I literally passed a hat at one of the big zoning meetings in 2003, and I got additional money from friends and in the mail.
Every step of the way, as I've been involved in running ads, I've begged and pleaded for money from the public to pay for them. Overall, the public has been quite generous-- although sometimes I've had to scale back my plans to accommodate my pocketbook. (For instance, what I hoped would be a full page ad last week turned out, after a major donor pulled out, to be a third page ad.)
When you are advocating a position that 78% of the public agrees with, it's not that hard to raise a few thousand dollars.
NOW, let me ask a question that's been burning in my mind for fifteen years-- where did Donald Rutledge (who never publicly begged for money) get the tons of cash it took to run HIS ads, and pay for his very expensive lawyer? I guarantee you that the spending of Rutledge matched Allan Wood's and my own, dollar for dollar, yet he never begged for donations. It almost makes you wonder whose deep pockets Rutledge was shilling for, doesn't it?
Anonymous said:
Mr McPeters
Perhaps you should be appointed county mayor since you have all the answers.
Not ALL of the answers. But if the question is about zoning, I do have quite a lot of knowledge to share. But then, who wouldn't after studying a subject for fifteen years?
As far as being appointed County Mayor, I'd rather let someone else be elected to that job. Thanks, but no thanks!
Then you could, at your discretion, get rid of those who would disagree with you and replace them with the "smarter and more progressive" people of your own choosing. Would you be happy with that?
No, actually, I wouldn't. I'm really more of a populist than I am an elitist. And I think the tried and true methods of appointing people should be used, rather than establishing a dictatorship under me. BTW, it's kind of ironic that you think I'd like to be dictator, considering how I've spent so much of my life fighting for the right of people to have referendums.
Again. as someone stated, consider what Jim Jones did at Jonestown to the majority of his followers. 78% is a charming statistic, but it reflects the job many "smarter than we are" people did in portraying zoning as a monster. But, hasn't time proven that to be untrue? How has that monster harmed anyone? Lastly, why was Alan Wood so against ordinances that would protect private property owners? Why?
Anonymous said:
No, Mr. Mcpeters, you and your cronies (a term you love to use) have done a masterful job advertising the LUMP, portraying it as something evil and destructive.
It certainly is evil to pass a plan in violation of state law, against the wishes of the majority of the electorate AND to do so by telling baldfaced lies, starting with that old classic, "the LUMP is not a zoning plan."
As far as "destructive" goes, we'd have to see the LUMP actually enforced to have a definitive say on that. As written, though, it zones out all future growth from Giles County, and I think that ought to count as pretty darn destructive.
But tell me sir.....what harm has it done to anyone?
IT ISN'T BEING ENFORCED! ERGO, IT HAS NO ABILITY TO INFLICT HARM!
I have never been able to get any of you to answer that for me.
I've answered this before. Certainly I answered it over and over on Penny Thoughts' blog. And the answer simply is, it isn't being enforced (yet), therefore it is harmless. But when the day comes that it IS enforced... watch out!
The only thing I hear from your side is that people lose their freedom. How so? Please explain.
I tell you what. I'm going to assume that you sincerely don't get it, and I will respond to you at length (after I get caught up with my blog and email). While you are waiting, do you think it would be too much trouble to rent and watch a movie that will help you grasp this "freedom issue?" I'm speaking of Mel Gibson's Academy Award winning epic, "Braveheart." PLease watch "Braveheart" on DVD, and then I'll discuss the issue of "lost freedom" with you, okay?
That same negative advertising is precisely why most people would not vote in favor of ANY zoning plan in this county...
We don't have to vote on a ZONING plan! The Private Act I propose is not based on zoning, and could quite properly be called a "nuisance abatement act." Why would people reflexively vote against something like that?
even if it was legal to have a referendum vote.
Of COURSE it is legal to have a referendum vote. That's one of the two ways that private acts are empowered, once they're passed by the state legislature. So my "nuisance abatement" private act could certainly -- 100% absolutely for sure -- be voted on in a referendum that is 100% absolutely for sure constitutional. So why not try having such a referendum, and see what the results turn out to be?
But you already know that, don't you?
I know that my opinion of the average Giles County voter is considerably higher than the opinion held by most pro-zoners. We have seen the public compared to sheep, right on this blog, and (perhaps most infamously) a brief filed by Donald Rutledge's lawyer stated that the people of Giles County weren't smart enough to be trusted with the power of voting on zoning. Just out of curiosity, Anonymous, is that the way you feel about Giles voters, too?
Anonymous asked:
Would you lobby for a zoning plan that was to your liking as hard as you have against the one presently in place? I honestly want to know and am not attempting to be critical.
Yes, I certainly would. As a matter of fact, I would be happy to start from square one, and help the County Commission craft a plan that was acceptable. I assume that I'd (if I was pushing for a zoning plan) get much more access to the local news media, so I can certainly see publishing a guest column or two, as well as going on the radio station to explain and promote the plan. Then, if anyone out in pro-zoner land wants to contribute money to me, I'll gladly run as many newspaper and radio ads as I can afford.
In truth, though, I don't think it would be that hard of a sell. Basically, we'd be saying to the voters that (a) here is a list of things neither you or your neighbor will be able to do without permission, and (b) this list cannot be added or subtracted from without passing another state law, and having another local referendum. Now -- assuming that the list of nuisances was reasonable -- who would object to that? Is there really a pro-incenerator, pro-rock quarry, etc, constituency that could claim a majority of the votes? I think the very idea of that is absurd. So, really and truly, I think a good plan would pass easily, and yes, you'd better believe that I will fight tooth and nail to see it passed.
Why, you may ask? Well, firstly because if I promise to do something, I really do try and get the job done. And second, I'm not so young anymore. And I know that, until SOMETHING WORKABLE is protecting Giles County, the zoning issue will just keep coming back over and over and over again.
The first time I fought zoning, I was in my mid twenties. Today, I'm in my early forties. And, while I'm confident that my lawsuit will strike down the stupid LUMP, I'm equally confident that some horrific threat or another will threaten Giles County, within another 15 or 20 years. And quite frankly, when I'm in my sixties, I sure as heck want to be doing something better with my life, than fighting zoning for a third time. Wouldn't you?
Anonymous said to the pro-zoners:
If you don't like Kendrick's stance on Giles County's zoning issue, start your own blog site and lobby your case. Let your supporters blog their hearts out. Otherwise, quit bashing Kendrick for the service he is providing for those of us who support him.
Thanks, but really, I enjoy a good debate. And, if I didn't have them presenting their case, how could I present mine? The pro-zoners are indispensible to having a debate, and, while I wish they'd stop hiding in anonymity, I'm glad they're on my blog. And I'm also glad that you're here, and I certainly appreciate your sentiments and kind words.
Anonymous said:
Kendrick is obviously a well-spoken individual who is not afraid of confrontation so I think he can fight his own battles
Thank you. I couldn't have said it any better myself. :-)
Anonymous said:
Again. as someone stated, consider what Jim Jones did at Jonestown to the majority of his followers.
This is the only example of majority rule you can think of??? And what is the alternative to majority rule? Minority rule? Dictatorship? Spit it out, Anonymous... I want to know what basis you'd use for a political system.
78% is a charming statistic,
Also, a FACTUAL statistic.
...but it reflects the job many "smarter than we are" people did in portraying zoning as a monster.
Maybe it reflected the fact that people wanted to be free to use their OWN property as they saw fit? As far as "monstrousness" goes, why not ask that elderly black woman in Nashville, who was recently almost jailed for having vinyl siding on her house, what she thinks about zoning?
http://66.45.13.138/index.cfm?section=9&screen=news&news_id=50835
But, hasn't time proven that to be untrue? How has that monster harmed anyone?
How has the monster been enforced? Answer: it hasn't been!
Let's try an analogy, and see if you can understand. Suppose that Congress passed, as an anti-terrorism measure, a law that required every American to have an ID chip implanted in their right hand. And suppose that the penalty for refusing the chip was death by decapitation. Now, you would think that, once such a law was proposed, there would be all kinds of lurid opposition painting awful pictures of this benevolent law, and predicting all kinds of evil consequences if it passed Congress. Now suppose that after it is passed, the government simply doesn't enforce the law. Nobody is chipped; nobody gets executed. If that would be the case, would it be logical for supporters of the law to trumpet this fact and say, "See! See! The naysayers were wrong! How has this law been a monster???"
Obviously, any law -- from a mundane zoning plan, to the Mark of the Beast, has to be enforced in order to judge it rationally. Since the LUMP has NEVER BEEN ENFORCED, and since it is so self contradictory that it CAN'T be enforced, it has not turned out to have a monstrous impact. But try and enforce it, and see what happens, okay?
Lastly, why was Alan Wood so against ordinances that would protect private property owners? Why?
I'll give you the short answer tonight, and, if that doesn't explain it for you, I'll post a more detailed explanation later.
The short answer is, he had more than half a brain, but only one kidney. That's why he opposed zoning.
It is hard for me to believe that anyone would listen to somebody who has NEVER ACCOMPLISHED ANYTHING!
I didn't relaize that this was a blog for ONLY the anti-zoners and smart people? Pardon me.
Anonymous said:
It is hard for me to believe that anyone would listen to somebody who has NEVER ACCOMPLISHED ANYTHING!
Taking a guess that this shouting is directed at me, I'll simply state that its easy, from a position of anonymity, to claim some sort of superiority. And I'll add, that, if "Anonymous" ever reveals his true identity, that it's a good bet that I accomplished more by the time I was 17 years old, than he has his entire life.
When I was 17, I wrote a lengthy "letter to the editor" of the Pulaski Citizen. A former writer of that paper, Henry W. Hicks, was so astounded by the intelligence and maturity of that letter, that he befriended me, and, when he died twelve years later, left my family about $70,000 in cash.
Another person who read that letter to the editor was running for Congress at the time. And she asked me, on the basis of that letter, to join her campaign-- not as an envelope stuffer, but as a speechwriter. (I declined, as I considered her too much of a free spender in her ideology.)
Also, when I was 17, I took the PSAT test. As a result of this, I, along with Frank Barnes, was named a National Merit Scholar Semifinalist. Only 1 in 250 students get this honor, which means that Frankie and I placed in roughly the 99.6th percentile of academic achievement.
I have accomplished many, many other things since I got out of high school. But I thought I'd mention these items first, and see if the anonymous commenter can match even what I did while still a wet behind the ears kid.
Anonymous said:
I didn't relaize that this was a blog for ONLY the anti-zoners and smart people? Pardon me.
Oh no, there's no reason to beg pardon. I'm perfectly happy for pro-zoners and stupid people to participate here, if that's what they want to do.
Being in the same company with Frankie is a real accomplishment. What happenned to him at igiles?
Your arrogance knows no bounds! You are truly a legend in your own mind! Funny, I have a polar-opposite view of stupidity, which is, in the final analysis, a most relative term. Would you agree?
What happened to him at the police deptartment?
Anonymous said:
Being in the same company with Frankie is a real accomplishment.
Yes, it certainly is, if you're talking about attaining the same level of academic achievement. Which is precisely what I was talking about, as you well know...
What happenned to him at igiles?
I don't know.... but I'd bet good money that he wasn't fired for lacking the smarts to do his job!
Anonymous said:
Your arrogance knows no bounds! You are truly a legend in your own mind!
Gee whiz... I was slammed by someone for "never having accomplished anything." And then I defended myself, by pointing out several things I'd done by the age of 17. Do you honestly think I'd have mentioned any of that, if I wasn't having to defend myself? I've been running the blog for two months now, and this is the first time I've mentioned it. If I'm so damned arrogant, why hadn't I trumpeted all of this before now?
Funny, I have a polar-opposite view of stupidity, which is, in the final analysis, a most relative term. Would you agree?
Both genius and stupidity are relative -- relative to the norm, that is. And the difference between genius and stupidity is, genius has its limits, while stupidity does not. :-)
Clearly that is the case Kendrick. Atleast that is what the massive amount of your posts indicate. Education is key. Open mindeness is liberating. You should try both sometime.
To Mr. McPeters,
Can't we keep the language a little cleaner. You might not mind using some words, "If I'm so d***** arrogant,", but some of us don't want to read that. With your obvious intellect by your postings, I think you can widen your vocabulary to still get your point across without cursing. Just a suggestion for this blog.
Thanks,
Melissa Greene
Well spoken Mrs. Greene!
Post a Comment
<< Home