Muzzled No More!
Click on "comments" below, and you can read a speech I wrote some years ago, for the Planning Commission of Giles County. Needless to say, I wasn't allowed to deliver it, even though I had extensively rehearsed it, and could have done a good job with it...
It's long, but worth reading. Especially to find out how local county politics murdered my father. And how a corrupt banker forced school consolidation down the county's throat. Plus, you've gotta get a kick at me pitching "civil disobedience" to a zoning committee! Read it and see for yourself, and then maybe we can have a nice discussion on the issues raised.
It's long, but worth reading. Especially to find out how local county politics murdered my father. And how a corrupt banker forced school consolidation down the county's throat. Plus, you've gotta get a kick at me pitching "civil disobedience" to a zoning committee! Read it and see for yourself, and then maybe we can have a nice discussion on the issues raised.
posted by J. Kendrick McPeters | 9:21 PM
8 Comments:
UNDELIVERED SPEECH TO THE ZONING COMMITTEE --- March 3, 2003
(undelivered because I wasn't allowed to speak-- KM)
My name is Kendrick McPeters. I invested many hundreds of hours of my time into fighting zoning, back in the early 1990's. And now that the matter has come back up, it's somewhat inevitable that I have a desire to get involved once more. But I frankly have to admit that I'm tired of the whole subject, and eager to move on to different and better things.
So these will hopefully be my last words on the subject of zoning. After tonight, if I don't get through to you, I will wash my hands of the issue. If a member of this committee wants me to come back in the future, I will if asked. But otherwise, tonight will be my last hurrah.
So, kindly indulge me as I speak my piece. It's fairly long, but its worth hearing. Thanks.
What I have to say can be divided into two parts-- first, I will explain why some of us are adamantly opposed to zoning, and then I will explain an alternative to zoning that will give Giles County protection from noxious uses of land without instituting tyrannical people control.
Let me start with a lesson in unintended consequences. About ten years ago, a private company based in Alabama, Suburban Ambulance, made an offer to buy Giles County's government run ambulance service, and operate it at NO COST to the taxpayers. In fact, they offered to upgrade the ambulance service in the process, staffing it 100% with paramedics rather than the EMTs that Giles County had at the time. And they made a good faith effort to demonstrate the seriousness of their intentions, by opening an office in Pulaski, as well as a fully equipped ambulance station in Ardmore. But a funny thing happened to Suburban Ambulance-- they not only had their "too good to be true" offer spurned, they were run out of the county to boot. How? First of all, the 911 dispatchers were ordered to route all emergency calls to the County's ambulance service, no matter whose ambulance was closest. Then Suburban Ambulance had their Pulaski headquarters gutted by a suspicious fire. And when they finally got the message and left, the Giles County Commission passed something called a "franchise act" which makes it illegal for any private company to compete with Giles County's ambulance service.
And why was this done? Let me be frank. All of this was done simply to benefit one specific individual. Historically, private interest trumps the public good in Giles County, and in this case, the one interest that anyone cared about was preserving the tax funded job of the director of the County ambulance service, Tommy Erwin. [Note, July 11, 2006: I wasn't speaking ill of the dead. Mr. Erwin was alive when I wrote this and tried to deliver it. For the record, whatever my political differences with Mr. Erwin, I had nothing against him personally.]
And thanks to James Miller, a majority of County Commissioners, and the local cheerleader newsmedia, Mr. Erwin was allowed to serve out his job, til his recent retirement. But what of the public good? What about folks who were unlucky enough to have heart attacks in Ardmore, and then die before the Giles County Ambulance Service could arrive to render aid? An unlikely hypothetical, you say? Hardly.
On May 15, 1996, my father -- Jack McPeters -- was at a job site only a stone's throw away from Ardmore. With him was an off duty paramedic, Danny Hopkins. He had a fainting spell, and Mr. Hopkins, knowing his cardiac history, called both the Giles County Ambulance Service, and the Ardmore Rapid Responders-- the latter a group affiliated with the Ardmore Fire Department. Shortly after Mr. Hopkins placed these calls, my father fainted again. Danny Hopkins checked his pulse and discovered that my he was in cardiac arrest. Mr. Hopkins immediately began to provide CPR. Now you would think that this was the best case scenario for surviving a heart attack-- having an off duty paramedic with you, and with the Rapid Responder's defibrillator being only minutes away. Alas, there was a catch. You see, the Rapid Responders are a government do-gooder agency, and therefore are almost completely shielded from legal liability, no matter how blatant their misconduct may be. And, for some reason or another, keeping the batteries of their defibrillator charged was a low priority. So, as a result, when they showed up minutes after Mr. Hopkins called, all three of the batteries in their crash cart were dead. ONE battery would've been enough to save my father's life, but, as unbelievable as it may sound, all THREE of their batteries were dead. But that's not the worst of it.
As my family found out in the process of legal discovery, the Rapid Responders had a second defibrillator with them -- one of the newer automatic models -- but they refused to even TRY using it. Why, you no doubt are wondering --- why would anyone REFUSE to use an available piece of equipment to at least TRY and save the life of a fellow human being? Well, they refused to use that second defibrillator because it was only licensed for use in Alabama, and my father had his heart attack on the Tennessee side of the state line. But, you know, rules are rules, and we're all taught in the government schools that rules must be obeyed, no matter what the cost, or who dies as a result of them. Somehow -- I can't imagine how -- these folks seem to be able to live with what they did. If they feel remorse about the choice they made that fateful day, they at least have never been moved to utter the first words of apology to my family.
Eventually, the Giles County Ambulance showed up, and their batteries were fully charged, but it was too late. My father was already dead by then, and nothing could save him. Thank you James Miller. Thank you County Commissioners. Thank you Phil Willis. Thanks to all of you fine people, that terrible awful private ambulance company was driven out of Giles County, and their station in Ardmore closed down for good. My father's senseless death was the unintended consequence of the good ole boy politics that have long dominated Giles County.
The power clique may not have INTENDED to cause my father's death -- and, by the way, I know of at least one other heart attack victim who died in Ardmore since then, waiting for an ambulance to make the long drive from Pulaski -- but their intentions don't really matter. Dead is dead. A for-profit ambulance company like Suburban would, for damned sure, keep their defibrillator batteries charged, but they were driven out of Ardmore and Giles County, so as to preserve the taxpayer funded job of the ever so important and influential Tommy Erwin.
I wish I could say that this incident was an aberration, and that every other political decision made in Giles County has been made with the public good foremost in mind... but come on, we're all adults here, and we know how things really work. And it's because we know how things work in Giles County that some of us -- roughly 77.5% of the public, at last official count -- don't want to vest the power of zoning with this Committee and the County Commission.
All of you are no doubt aware of the possible side effects of county wide zoning. Corruption. Bribery of public officials. Endless red tape for property owners. An unending gravy train for Pulaski's lawyers. The zoning out of good paying industrial jobs by environmental fanatics.
All this and more is likely to happen, in due time. But please do not delude yourself into thinking that these would be unintended consequences of zoning Giles County. In truth, these are the INTENDED consequences desired by some of the pro-zoners who expect to seize control of all property in Giles County, once county wide zoning becomes law.
As I will demonstrate toward the end of my remarks, if the pro-zoners wished merely to protect people from noxious land uses -- junkyards, landfills, rock quarries, and the like -- then they would advocate taking the course of least resistance, and lobby for passage of laws that, without zoning, give the county the power to regulate such noxious uses. Over ten years ago, Commissioner Kenny Wells proposed a Hazardous Waste Management Plan based on the exact same standards as set down in the zoning plan written on behalf of CATI -- Citizens Against Toxic Incineration. State law specifically authorizes county hazardous waste management plans, but, nonetheless, the supposedly "pro-protection" zoning fanatics opposed Kenny Wells' plan, and it was tabled.
By the way, any commissioner who wants to UN-table it can do so, by simply making a motion to bring it up for a vote. And any commissioner who wants to protect us from junkyards can bring to the floor a junkyard control act, as I recommended a decade ago, when I mailed every Giles Commissioner a copy of the junkyard control act passed in Carter County.
I will return to this issue shortly. For now, I simply want you to note that, if PROTECTION is really all that motivates the pro-zoning cabal, then they could get all they wanted simply by using their political clout to lobby for protection without zoning. But CONTROL and POWER is what motivates them, not "protection."
Let me turn back the clock to the last time these people insisted on getting their way about something, public opinion be damned. I'm speaking of the battle over school consolidation in the early 1970's. During that fight, the supporters of community based schools were tarred as "radicals" who the Commissioners rightfully should ignore. The pro-consolidationists claimed that the county had no choice but to obey the state law, which mandated consolidation. They claimed that the citizens had no right to vote on the issue in any way whatsoever. They also claimed that consolidation would lead to better schools and improved test scores.
What were the facts? Well, firstly, there was not then -- and is not now, two decades later -- any state law which mandates consolidation. The claims of the consolidationists were all bald faced lies, which anyone can easily verify by visiting Lawrenceburg and inquiring into their schools. But at least they were telling the truth about how we couldn't vote, right? No, that too was a lie. The construction of Richland School involved the floating of bonds, and the public had every right to vote on that. As to the claims that consolidated schools would be better than the community schools they replaced, anyone with half a brain should by now have figured out the truth of that proposition. And anyone that's been paying attention has noticed that the loss of the schools pretty much destroyed the communities that were left behind. Not physically, but in terms of them being something more than a collection of suburbs.
Let us remember the bullying tactics that were used to pass consolidation. At the time, Giles County enjoyed a little competition in its newsmedia-- the Pulaski Citizen and Giles Free Press were owned by different publishers, and took completely contrary stances on most issues.
Here's an interesting exercise for the curious. Go to the paper office, and read the archived issues of the Citizen and Free Press around the time of the consolidation issue. You will find that the Free Press loudly argued for consolidation, while the Citizen equally loudly defended the status quo. At least for a while. And then, rather mysteriously, the columnists at the Citizen shut up about the issue, and consolidation quickly became law.
What happened? The anti-consolidationists at the Citizen were muzzled by the Citizen's publisher, Harwood Smith. And why did he do that? Therein hangs a very interesting story, chock full of ramifications for the zoning issue.
When I was a seventeen year old boy, I wrote a letter to the editor which was published in the Citizen. One of the Citizen's long term columnists, Henry W. Hicks, saw the letter, and was greatly impressed. He took me under his wing, and became something of a grandfather figure to me. When he died a decade ago, he left my family a good deal of money. So never let it be said that writing letters to the editor is an unproductive activity.
One day Henry Hicks told me the story of school consolidation, as seen by an insider fighting at ground zero. He told me that the anti-consolidationists ran a very effective campaign, and had succeeded in stirring public sentiment to their side. Then a somewhat sinister turn was taken. Robert E. Curry, of alleged Christian life fame, personally visited every major business which advertised in the Pulaski Citizen. He applied the pressure that only a politically connected banker can apply, and got the owner of each business to sign a petition he had drafted. Then he visited Harwood Smith at the paper office, and threw it down on his desk. "Here's a list of all your advertisers. Print one more word against consolidation, and they'll all pull their ads for good, and you'll be forced to shut down the Citizen."
So Harwood Smith had two choices -- knuckle under to Curry's extortion, or go out of business. Not surprisingly, he chose the path of good businessman, rather than moral crusader. He told his columnists what had happened, and that was THAT for the anti-consolidation movement. Curry steamrollered over the opposition, and got his way.
But that was then, and this is now, right? The malignant Robert Curry has shuffled off his mortal coil, his son has been jailed for embezzlement, and these type of shenanigans would NEVER happen nowadays. Well, that's only true insofar as a modern day Robert Curry wouldn't HAVE to use such blatant extortion. The media monopoly in Giles County is always on the side of those who believe they have a God given right to rule over us, and this is best illustrated by the fact that the local radio station rather condescendingly refuses to carry Quarterly Court meetings. "If we aired them," says station manager Ronnie Rose, "it would just provide fodder to those who are always trying to divide Pulaski and Giles County." Really. That's what he said, just a few months ago in a guest column. Look it up if you don't believe me.
Now, the undeniable fact is that the government of Giles County has a very poor track record in telling the truth, and doing the right thing, and we no longer have any sort of media competition to serve as any check on the abuse of power. But maybe we can put our faith in the legal system, right? Pass zoning, and the local lawyers will keep the zoners on the straight and narrow path?
Well, at the risk of bursting a few bubbles, I'd like to suggest that the lawyers will not be our saviors, at least any time in the near future. The very fact that this Committee has been charged with developing a zoning plan amply illustrates the duplicity of our local legal community. All, or certainly the overwhelming majority, of Pulaski's lawyers have claimed two things that are demonstrably not true. First, that zoning is the only means available to provide protection to Giles County. And second, that the voters of Giles County could never, ever, vote on a zoning plan, at least without violating the Constitution.
If the Pulaski legal clique would admit that zoning is not our only avenue of protection, this Committee would not be busy at work creating a plan which every one of you knows is not desired by the majority of Giles County citizens. And if the lawyers admitted the legality of zoning referendums, the odds are that most of you would refuse to participate in the present "let's shove zoning down the public's throat" campaign.
Now I know what you are probably thinking. Didn't we find out, a decade ago, that voting on zoning is absolutely -- no ifs, ands, or buts -- unconstitutional? No, as a matter of fact, we did not. What we learned, if we were paying attention -- and I, for one, certainly was -- was that the legal system in Tennessee is a pathetic joke, at least when it comes to upholding the rights of ordinary citizens, as opposed to, say, convicted criminals.
Let's take a good, close look at what happened.
In order to resolve the zoning issue, a 2/3 majority of County Commissioners requested that Joe Fowlkes introduce a private act authorizing referendums on zoning. Fowlkes handed off the task of writing the act to me, and I wrote an act which required a referendum by the voters -- rather than a 2/3 vote of Commissioners, as every earlier private act in Tennessee history had required -- in order to be empowered. Despite great efforts to scuttle this private act, it received unanimous consent approval from the legislature, and the governor refused to veto it.
Almost immediately, three shills came out of the woodwork to do the bidding of the pro-zoning power clique. Now, maybe you believe that Rutledge, Estep and King paid all the expensive legal bills in that lawsuit. You can believe in the Easter Bunny too, if you like. Personally, I'd have to see some hard proof-- and I won't be holding my breath waiting for it, if you know what I mean. Anyway, the lawsuit was filed by the three shills, and the case came before Judge William B. Cain. Now, before I give you my opinion of Cain and his ever so quickie verdict, let me say something about the legal precedents that Cain was required to follow. In a nutshell, every private act in state history prior to Giles County's zoning private act, was one that acted to raise taxes or endow county governments with extra powers. And since judges are little more than rubber-stamps for power, always willing to turn backflips to justify additional power put in the hands of politicians, the caselaw on private acts was that they were almost always legal. If any reason, no matter how unlikely, could be found to justify them, then the "reasonable basis" test was met, and the law was declared constitutional.
So here we had the first private act in Tennessee history to be ratified by public referendum, and all the caselaw said that private acts are almost always constitutional. And the Tennessee Constitution itself said that counties could have "alternate forms of county government" provided that they were endorsed by public referendum. It sounds like a slam dunk for the anti-zoners, right? Wrong. Judge Cain whipped out a decision in ONLY FOUR DAYS, thereby rather fortuitously scooping a tabloid supplement, which printed every legal brief on both sides of the case, that Allan Wood and I had scheduled to go in the local paper. Cain was in such an apparent rush, that he ignored several of the arguments and precedents that were presented in Mr. Wood's briefs. He also ignored, without any comment, Allan Wood's motion to dismiss the lawsuit.
Now Cain wasn't always this speedy. He once took several months to decide the rather more trivial question of whether or not "coaching supplements" constituted "teacher pay." But to decide the constitutionality of a private act supported by 77.5% of Giles County voters -- and to write a 23 page long decision -- ahem -- he only took four days.
I will now give you my opinion, based on quite a lot of consideration over the past ten years. First of all, Cain's decision is bad joke. The precedents which I uncovered while researching Mr. Wood's legal briefs, completely and without qualification support the thesis that the private act was constitutional. Nine years ago, I offered to debate any lawyer on the radio on the constitutionality of the private act, and there were no takers. That should tell you something.
I believe, based on abundant legal precedent, that Cain's decision was worth no more than used toilet paper. What do I think of Judge Cain as a human being and judge? Not very much. Write down what I'm about to say, and forward it to him at the Tennessee Court of Appeals -- which he was appointed to only a couple of months or so before he was scheduled to face the wrath of Giles voters -- ahem -- and maybe, if I'm lucky, he'll sue me for defamation of character. I really hope he does, because the truth is the absolute defense against libel and slander, and I'd relish the opportunity to prove my case before a jury of my peers.
My considered opinion is that only three possibilities can explain Judge Cain ruling against the private act. First, he may have taken a bribe from the well financed pro-zoners. Judicial bribery is not all that uncommon -- Abe Fortas was driven off the US Supreme Court for taking a bribe, amongst many other examples I could give --- and Judge Cain neither walks on water, or has nail holes in his hands and feet. So, being a human being as well as a judge, it's certainly possible that he auctioned off his decision to the highest bidder.
Now, unless we find a canceled check from a pro-zoner to Judge Cain with "private act bribe" typed into the "for" blank, we'll never know that this is what happened. And we'll always have to consider the distinct possibility that Cain IS as honest as the day is long, and DIDN'T sell his decision --- innocent until proven guilty, needless to say. Nonetheless, bribery is, and always will remain, one POSSIBILITY that could explain Cain's preposterous and totally without legal merit decision.
Another possibility is that Cain was the victim of threats, blackmail, or some other sort of extortion. This is easy for me to imagine. I personally got at least one death threat -- from a County Commissioner, no less -- and a prominent local businessman once chewed me out on the phone and threatened to beat me up.
Perhaps someone on the pro-zoning side sent Judge Cain a "message" of some sort. Maybe he had his tires slashed, or his dog poisoned. Maybe he got a call in the middle of the night saying he'd be damned sorry if he ruled the private act constitutional. Again, just as we can never know for sure whether Cain accepted a bribe, we'll never know for sure whether he was a victim of extortion. But we must consider the possibility, at the very least.
Finally, it is possible that Cain delivered a monumentally stupid opinion because he is a bonehead. Perhaps he hasn't got a lick of sense, and that idiotic decision was the best he could do. I'm not sure how he could've graduated law school if he's THAT stupid, but again, I am only listing possibilities here. I'll leave it to you to calculate the probabilities in the matter.
The way I see it, Judge Cain is a poor excuse for a judge, no matter what happened. If he took a bribe, he shouldn't be on the bench. If he kowtowed to extortion, he shouldn't be on the bench. And if he's too stupid to interpret and follow the precedent in an open and shut case like the private act matter, then he shouldn't be on the bench. Any way you look at things, he shouldn't be on the bench, but instead he got PROMOTED to the Tennessee Court of Appeals. Go figure.
After Judge Cain's quickie decision, Allan Wood scoured the state, looking for a lawyer to handle his appeal. He eventually found one in Memphis--- attorney James E. Brockman. Mr. Brockman had a reputation of being a fearless crusader who liked to fight on the side of the little guy. And he was quite enthusiastic about taking the case all the way to the US Supreme Court, if need be.
Alas, it turned out that Brockman was -- and feel absolutely free to quote me on this -- a shyster. Allan Wood had an "appeal by right" in the Court of Appeals, which means that those judges HAD to hear it, no matter how much they'd prefer NOT to hear it. Literally all that Shyster Brockman had to do, to get the appeal heard, was to file a little paperwork before a certain deadline. This he did not do, and the case was dismissed on the grounds of technicality.
The Appeals Court judges pinned ALL of the blame for the case's dismissal on Shyster Brockman, but refused to allow Mr. Wood a hearing with a new lawyer. By the rules that the Appeals Court swears to follow, Mr. Wood was OWED a second chance. The lowest down child molester or murderer would have gotten a second chance, if they were "Brockmanned" by their lawyer. But referendums on zoning are different, don't you see, and it's perfectly alright with the Court of Appeals for shysters to screw their clients out of their appeal by right, and no second chance is even considered.
Eventually, Mr. Wood appealed the case to the Tennessee Supreme Court. And they said "no" to hearing his appeal. Just plain "no," mind you, without any words of explanation at all. The 4 federal and 11 state precedents and the 10 questions to be reviewed were all ignored.
With only 28 short words, the Supreme Court allowed Judge Cain's worthless and suspiciously quick decision to stand. Thanks to Brockman -- and whoever paid him off, if he was paid to take a dive, which the evidence certainly suggests is a possibility -- Judge Cain was the ONLY judge to hear any of the issues. And the Supreme Court let his ever so questionable decision stand even though it involved a matter that was PURELY CONSTITUTIONAL in nature. Incredible!
Now a cynical person might take this series of events, and come to the conclusion that the judicial system in Tennessee is unbelievably corrupt, or at least heavily biased against those who attempt to secure freedom for the common man. But there's no need to be cynical. With a little imagination, it's possible to believe that some other explanation can account for all that happened in the courts. Cain -- Brockman -- The Appeals Court -- The Supreme Court -- they weren't in any way colluding to deprive Giles County voters of their hard won rights. Nooooo... they were just having "off days" and they made a few stupid decisions which, purely by coincidence, served to take away our liberties. With imagination, you can believe this -- I swear you can, if you just try hard enough. You can also believe in unicorns, but that's really another story.
Now, I would never dream of asking you people to take my account of things on faith. So here's what you can do. Just email me at "mcpeters-at-usit-dot-net" and I will send you copies of Allan Wood's three legal briefs, his petition to the Court of Appeals, and his letter to Shyster Brockman. Read the briefs, and decide for yourself whether or not the private act was constitutional.
Then again, why bother going to all that trouble? You already KNOW that people have a right to vote on zoning. In your heart, you understand and appreciate the American Way. And you don't need a stack of musty old precedents to tell you what is right and what is wrong.
This country was founded on the principle of "consent of the governed" and it's pretty clear -- by a vote of roughly four to one -- that the voters of Giles County don't consent to be zoned without being able to voice their opinions at the ballot box. No judge's ruling -- not even a ruling by EVERY JUDGE on the face of the earth, speaking unanimously -- can undo the fact of what happened. The private act was passed UNANIMOUSLY by the state legislature, and RATIFIED by an OVERWHELMING majority of Giles County voters. Under EVERY test in the case law, and under the provisions of Article Seven of the Tennessee CONSTITUTION, that private act was perfectly constitutional.
Here is what this Zoning Committee should be doing. First, you should pass a resolution informing the County Commission that you will be morally unable to pass a zoning plan unless the Commission first requests another private act authorizing referendums on zoning. As it happens, I have prepared a "bulletproof" private act which is practically guaranteed to survive a court challenge. In fact, it is very unlikely that anyone would even file suit against it, the constitutionality of it being so obvious on its face.
The County Commission cannot pass a zoning plan without your first drafting and certifying one. This means that you have them by the short hairs. If you people take a stand for what is right, just, and reasonable, the County Commission will be forced to either request a new private act authorizing referendums, or they will have to give up on county wide zoning altogether. From my point of view, either outcome would be a victory for the common people of Giles County.
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.
So, as I hope I have made ABUNDANTLY clear, there are ALTERNATIVES to zoning. And, all things considered, zoning is FAR from being the best way to protect this county from noxious uses of land. What Houston, Texas and other unzoned areas have done with noxious use statutes, deed restrictions and covenants, Giles County could do LIKEWISE. All it takes is for five out of nine of you to REFUSE to be conspirators in a plot against the Giles County voters and property owners.
You are here to zone us. But you have a free will choice to sit on your hands, and REFUSE to stab the people of Giles County in the back. It's your choice, and nobody can make it for you. The choice you make will speak volumes about your integrity and moral character, so you should take care to choose wisely.
Please understand that zoning is nothing more than RAW POWER over people. You may think that you can exercise that power in a just and prudent manner, but the fact remains that you don't have lifetime tenure. Eventually, someone else will take hold of the reigns of power, and when they do... well, all bets are off. It is absolute insanity to even THINK about vesting this sort of power in the hands of a county government that has always been beset with cronyism and has often failed to serve the public interest, and that's ESPECIALLY true when the only "watchdog" over this county government is a media monopoly controlled by one man.
And how much power is conferred by county-wide zoning? Almost infinite power.
I've read and re-read the state zoning enabling act many times, and the only thing I can find that is positively ruled out is, charging a permit fee for a bonafide agricultural use. Other than that, and anything goes. If this unelected Zoning Commission wants -- as many, many Zoning Commissions nationwide have -- to dictate what color we can paint our houses, well you folks can do exactly that. All you have to do is follow the procedure in the state law, and the "paint chip Nazis" can soon be goose-stepping in Giles County, just like they are in so many other places.
Now I know you say that could never happen here. But the only way to GUARANTEE it won't happen is to either pass another private act authorizing zoning referendums, or to forget about zoning altogether, and provide protection via a noxious use ordinance, or a campaign to write restrictions into every Giles County deed, or both if you happen to like redundancy.
Zoning can't grow into an out of control hydra headed monster if the public is allowed to vote on the plan, and any changes to it. And if we protect ourselves without putting our heads in the noose of zoning, we have nothing to worry about at all.
There are good reasons why Giles Countians oppose forced county wide zoning. The type of political decisionmaking which resulted in my father's life being sacrificed on the altar of Tommy Erwin's cushy tax-paid job, is far too common in Giles County history. And the type of "big fish in a small pond" corruption that Robert Curry specialized in, is still a problem, even though the Currys have passed from the political scene.
Giles Countians don't want zoning forced on them. As it happens, Giles Countians have excellent and compelling reasons for not wanting zoning, but that is beside the point. All that matters is that the sovereign voice of the people has spoken, by a nearly four to one majority, and the wishes of the voters are abundantly clear. You have only two choices -- to RESPECT these wishes, or to DISREGARD them.
And let me make it clear, that the passage of ten years since that referendum has done NOTHING to justify the passage of zoning. This past August we had a local election, and I issued a public challenge to every candidate running that, if they supported zoning, to let me know, and I'd publish the fact of their support in an ad. NOT ONE CANDIDATE who was elected to the County Commission wanted to go on record as a zoning supporter. Nor did County Executive Vanzant.
So any elected official who now pushes zoning is DISHONEST on their face. They are liars of omission who refused to unmask their true agendas when they stood before the voters as mere candidates. No election since the private act ratification has been won by anyone who took a stand FAVORING forced county wide zoning. Just ask Don Massey, if you'd like a second opinion.
We all are adults here, and we know the true score. The people of Giles County never stopped wanting the right to vote on zoning, simply because ONE bottom rung of the ladder LOCAL shyster in a black robe issued a "four day wonder" OPINION saying it was illegal and unconstitutional.
You don't believe me? Then sit on your hands and FORCE the County Commission to ask for another private act. And then, if the overwhelming majority of the voters don't vote in favor of empowering it, I'll come back before this committee and eat a copy of this speech. Literally.
Ladies and gentlemen of the Zoning Committee, you are members of a jury that must render a verdict on the future of Giles County. Will it be a future of freedom, growth and prosperity? Or will the members of a small clique be given a stranglehold over Giles County, with the common man and woman reduced to the status of second class serfs? Will good paying jobs ever come to our fair county, or will the gate be slammed shut for good? Will the rural lifestyle be allowed to continue as it's been, or will busybodies from Pulaski be allowed to micromanage and dictate the use of rural land which they don't even own?
Ladies and gentlemen of the Zoning Committee, you can stop this zoning railroad right in its tracks. Just say "no" to forced county wide zoning. Don't quit this committee, but simply refuse to serve the cause of tyranny. Send the County Commission and the County Executive a message --- "We won't LET you have zoning, ever, unless you first grant the people of Giles County the right to VOTE on zoning." And if they don't hear that message, send them another one. Draft a private act to deal with noxious uses of land, and send a copy of it to the County Commission.
And if they don't hear THAT message, then send em one last message--- stop scheduling Zoning Committee meetings, and refuse to come to any meetings that do get scheduled.
Ladies and gentlemen, you are NOT guards in a nazi concentration camp. You don't have to worry about being shot, if you don't follow orders. If the orders you've been given are, in effect, to rape Giles Countians out of their freedom and property rights, then IGNORE them. You not only have a right to ignore them, but a moral obligation as well. Search your heart, and insist on doing the right thing. Just because a long trail of crooked politicians, corrupt businessmen, shills, lawyers and judges have gotten together to stomp on the freedom of Giles County voters, is no reason to lace up a pair of jackboots, and join them in the frenzy.
Just say no. Just do the right thing. Say "no" to the zoning Pharisees, and stand against the crucifixion of freedom in Giles County. It's just that simple. You people, all by your lonesome, can stop this charade in its tracks. In fact, all it takes for FIVE of you to say "no," and the forces of tyranny will be stopped for good.
Are there FIVE good people on this Committee? Ladies and Gentlemen, you not only are rendering a judgment on the future of Giles County, but also one on your own souls. You will be judged, for the rest of your lives, on the basis of which side you choose to take in this matter.
If you choose to take the side of the corrupt forces that are lusting over the prospect of forced county wide zoning, then you will be regarded as no better than them. If you choose to stand up to these forces of corruption, you will be regarded as righteous people, and perhaps even as heroes.
The choice is entirely in your hands, ladies and gentlemen. For your sake -- and the sake of Giles County -- I hope you choose wisely.
That's all I have to say -- thank you for giving me the opportunity to make this statement. Goodnight and God Bless.
By the way... if something as simple as an AMBULANCE SERVICE can't be run without politics rearing its ugly head -- and the story of my father's death proves it can't, not to mention the hundred or so posts that this blog has bickering back and forth on the ambulance service -- then how, in the name of all that's holy, could a ZONING PLAN be run without politics? Zoning is all about saying this man can use his property as he pleases, while that other guy can't enjoy the same rights, because he's in a different "zone." What could be more of a political football than that?
As I've pointed out before, if you Google "zoning + graft" you get 67,800 hits! Google "zoning + bribe" and you get 99,400 hits!! Google "zoning + corruption" and you get a whopping 685,000 hits!!!
Trust politicians and the good ole boy system with zoning? I think not.
Kendrick
I am so very sorry about the travesty of your father's death. Perhaps those EMT's were fearful about what some lawyer might do to them had they used that new piece of equipment? Regardless, that's neither here nor there, because your father passed away. I am truly sorry.
Perhaps I now understand why you are so negative toward "the status quo" as it has been called. But please tell me why our surrounding counties who have zoning plans are not constantly into some upheaval about it. We were the only county in this area without such a plan until we got the one we have now.
I think we both agree that the typical farmer or homeowner needs protection. I think we are all on the same page about that. Why can't we just have something simple that would keep intrusive businesses out of neighborhoods where people have lived for years?
That is all the farmer and homoeowner wants.....protection against such things. They never lobbied for nit-picky things, which can infringe upon their liberties. In fact, when the zoning plan was passed. I was admittedly disappointed that it had so many "this and thats" and seemed confusing at best. All people wanted was protection, regardless of what is was called.
I also think that maybe...just maybe...progress could be made toward achieving that more viable plan if those on both sides of the issue would stop the mud-slinging and try to rethink it. But I fear it might be too late, because of all the animosity. By definition, I am a pro-zoner, but one who would be willing to work with you toward peace and the formulation of something simple we could all live with. I favor personal rights too and do not want anyone telling me what color my house should be or how tall my hedge can grow. That is nit-picking.
I listened closely to John Lennon's "Imagine" this morning while driving in to town. It made me think..........let's give peace a chance. What a thought!
Anonymous said:
I am so very sorry about the travesty of your father's death.
Thank you. My life was filled with seething rage and depression, for about seven years after he died. I still miss him, but I'm pretty much "over" what happened.
Perhaps those EMT's were fearful about what some lawyer might do to them had they used that new piece of equipment?
Yeah, but... if I'd have been in that situation, I'd have said to the handful of people on the scene, "Look we've screwed up big time in the battery maintenence department... but we can't let this man die. So I'm going to use that new defib, even though we aren't supposed to in Tennessee, and all of us will just make a pact to keep this a secret. Deal? And if he lives, he won't know what happened, and if he dies, nobody will ever know we used the unlicensed defibrillator. Now, let's get to work!"
I've run the scenario in my mind many, many times, and I just can't see letting a man die because of some stupid rule. It would've been easy enough to use the new unit, and just deny touching it. Who would be the wiser? Who would want to sue them?
Regardless, that's neither here nor there, because your father passed away. I am truly sorry.
And I appreciate your sympathies...
Perhaps I now understand why you are so negative toward "the status quo" as it has been called.
It's not just the "status quo." It's using the political process to make important decisions that really ticks me off. Politicians aren't any smarter than the people they serve (and no intelligence test is required to hold office) and yet they presume to make the really important decisions for us. You talk about arrogance-- now, there is your arrogance.
And politics is always corrupt. Here we are in a little county with a monopoly news media, and the politicians can get away with pretty much anything -- as long as it doesn't antogonize the media people. And I'm not talking about big time corruption like bribe taking, but just penny ante corruption like allowing pro-zoners to speak to the Commission without suspending the rules, while I (representing only the 4-1 majority of opinion) am muzzled.
Then there's the little matter of how I followed the rules, and petitioned to change the LUMP, and was totally ignored by the powers that be. I'm sure we can all think of people who would've received respectful consideration, had they introduced a similar petition. Really, one of my biggest objections to zoning is that it doesn't "play fair" -- who you are, who you know, and how much money you're worth, determine how you'll be treated, and NOT the intrinsic merit of what you propose to do. And that stinks!
But please tell me why our surrounding counties who have zoning plans are not constantly into some upheaval about it.
I can think of two reasons: first, the people in our neighboring counties are "contented sheep" who are willing to be led around by the zoning shepard, without fuss or complaint. The second possibilty is simply that the people of Giles County are more freedom loving, and don't want to be zoned out of that freedom they love so dearly. (A lack of trust in the local political establishment may also factor into the equation.)
We were the only county in this area without such a plan until we got the one we have now.
Maybe so, but so long as it's not being enforced, we really aren't being protected by any plan. Sorry.
I think we both agree that the typical farmer or homeowner needs protection. I think we are all on the same page about that.
We seem to be. That's a good first step, in my opinion.
Why can't we just have something simple that would keep intrusive businesses out of neighborhoods where people have lived for years?
That's a question I've been asking for years now. I mean, nobody believes this, but the LUMP requires a church congregation to get permission from the County Commission, simply to build a church. Isn't that simply shameful?
That is all the farmer and homoeowner wants.....protection against such things. They never lobbied for nit-picky things, which can infringe upon their liberties.
Yes, you get the picture! And here is the real problem... the Tennessee enabling act on zoning is extremely broad. Pretty much anything a commission wants to put in a zoning plan is okay, and the voter has no say (referendum) to protect himself from overly ambitious zoners. So, over time... not one year or three years, but decades, the zoning plan grows ever more burdensome and restrictive.
You are familiar with the metaphor of a frog being bolied in a pot of water, right? He won't jump out as long as the temperature is raised gradually... and, because of this, he'll wind up boiled to death. Well, zoning works the same way. THe zoners always start out "light" but, over time, more and more "nit-picky" restrictions are put in, and the plan becomes a tyranny. And yes, in Tennessee, you can be told what color to paint your house, or what kind of siding to install. And crap like that, you can rest assured, was not in Version 1.0 of the plan. The public in those places got slowly boiled by ever expanding zoning rules, and never jumped out of the pot. (And now it's too late for them!)
In fact, when the zoning plan was passed. I was admittedly disappointed that it had so many "this and thats" and seemed confusing at best. All people wanted was protection, regardless of what is was called.
Yes, and we got "protected" from churches, private schools, ordinary industries that employ too many people (ie, pay too high a wage rate) and etecetera. And the plan isn't even coherent. As currently written, it can't be enforced, and will never offer an iota of protection. The people of Giles County deserve better, and that's why I petitioned for amendment, and (when that was ignored) filed a lawsuit to strike the LUMP down. Once the almighty LUMP is gone, we can start back at square one, and develop something workable that doesn't infringe on our rights. And no, that's not impossible, because "property rights" don't include the "right to be a nuisance across the property lines."
I also think that maybe...just maybe...progress could be made toward achieving that more viable plan if those on both sides of the issue would stop the mud-slinging and try to rethink it.
Well, I try not to sling all that much mud, myself. I do often call LUMPster Roger Reedy a liar, but that's easily proven by the record, and by now he should be used to it.... anyway, I would be willing to unilaterally stop saying nasty things about pro-zoners if, within say, a week or so, there were no more nasty comments being made about me being "a non-achiever" or an idiot, or things of that nature. In other words, I'm wiling to go first on a cease-fire, but if the other side chooses to keep shooting at me, a week later the deal will be off, and I'll start shooting back. How does that sound to you?
But I fear it might be too late, because of all the animosity.
It's never too late, especially if one side (like me) is willing to take the first step.
By definition, I am a pro-zoner, but one who would be willing to work with you toward peace and the formulation of something simple we could all live with.
I think my private act plan, which would lock in our protections, and be essentially tamperproof without an additional referendum, is the way to go. It would have the greatest opportunity to satisfy the desires of people on both sides of this divisive issue.
And we can take the first step, right here on this blog. I'm going to launch a new topic, entitled "What Do We Want to Keep Out of Giles County," and hopefully we can generate a comprehensive list of "noxious" things that we want protection from. After we agree on that, it's just a simple matter of filling in the details. No, I won't kid you, writing the actual plan will be tough, but I believe that I can secure some free help from one of the various free market think tanks and litigation firms. (There are many out there.)
I favor personal rights too and do not want anyone telling me what color my house should be or how tall my hedge can grow. That is nit-picking.
Well, if you don't want to see nits picked, AND you choose to take a long range view of things, the best solution is a private act plan ratified by the voters, which can only be made nit-pickier by another act of the state legislature, and vote of the public. And there would be no reason to refer to such a plan as a "zoning" plan, since it would not be authorized by the state's zoning code, nor would it divide land up into "zones." So, that poison pill terminology could easily -- and honestly -- be avoided when it came time to put the plan up for a vote. Let's call it the "Giles County Nuisance Prevention and Abatement Act." Who could be opposed to that? Is there a constituency that supports nuisances? Perhaps, but it's pretty unlikely it could attain a majority of the vote.
I listened closely to John Lennon's "Imagine" this morning while driving in to town. It made me think..........let's give peace a chance. What a thought!
I agree. I'm tired of fighting the same old fight, year after year... knowing that it will never be put to rest because there is always another noxious use lurking out there, threatening our peace and contentment. This is a battle that can end only one way... with the adoption of a workable plan that is supported by that 78% of the public that didn't want to be zoned.
You've probably heard the phrase "only Nixon could go to China." Well, in the same way that only a hardline anticommunist like Nixon could open the door to relations with Red China, it will probably take the work, support, and endorsement of a hardline antizoner, to get any protection plan passed in Giles County, by referendum of the people. Well, I am willing to be the zoning Nixon, and go to China, by helping to create and pass a nuisance protection plan. I have a very long track record of fighting for property rights in Giles County, and I don't believe that my support for a protection plan would go unnoticed, or lack some measure of influence.
I'm not saying this to be bragging. But with Allan Wood dead, I am the anti-zoner in chief, and most people know that.
You have extended the olive branch, and I appreciate that very much. I hereby extend an olive branch back, and pledge to work in a constructive manner to get some sort of workable, rights respecting plan passed, so that the future of Giles County will be secure. So now the question is.... will anyone else join us, or must the two of us do the job alone? I'm up for some heavy lifting... how about you?
Yes, by all means, let's give peace a chance. Starting now. Thank you for your comments; good luck with bringing the other pro-zoners on board. Take care!
I'm up for the task. Men can do great things when they try. I was afraid you might bite my hand when the olive branch was extended, but you didn't. So kudos to you as well. Yes, someone out there has got to be big enough to put an end to all this. It's hard to lay aside pride and ego in a situation like this, but it can be done on both sides. I am a soldier in that cause. We just want it to go away, and we want to know that some of the many scenarios previously posted will not become reality for more Giles Countians. Give peace a chance...why not?
And we cannot ...any of us...afford to be like "The Ostrich" (old Steppenwolf song).
Anonymous said:
I'm up for the task...
That's great. Now, let's try and find a few converts on both sides, and see if we can't get something going. And in that vein, I've posted the new topic, where we can list all the "nuisances" that we want Giles County ro be protected from. This can be the seed that the nuisance ordinance grows from... assuming we elect people on the County Commission that are willing to revisit the "protection" issue, and (this time) sweat the details, and get it done right. Public input, this time around, is a must! Otherwise we might wind up with "Son of LUMP" and see it voted down in the eventual referendum.
Anyway, it's nice to be taking the first steps toward the eventual peaceful resolution of this issue that has occupied so much of my time, for so many years. Again, thanks for the olive branch!
Great idea, but I fear too much has been said. But it's a nice thought.
Post a Comment
<< Home