I'm speaking, of course, about "floodplain zoning." Most people (myself included) didn't realize it when it happened, but a few years ago, Giles County was put under a very comprehensive (and expensive, if implemented) zoning plan...
Under the floodplain zoning passed (apparently in the dark of night) in 1999, no "development" may be initiated without first obtaining a permit from the County Executive. And on what basis is this permit given? According to a story written by Claudia Johnson, in the January 20, 2005
Giles Free Press, "among the items to be included in the application were plans in duplicate drawn to scale showing the nature, location, dimensions and elevations of the area in question, existing or proposed structures, earthen fill, storage of materials or equipment or drainage facilities. The applicant was to obtain a certificate from a registered professional engineer or architect that a nonresidential flood-proofed building would meet specified criteria. Also included was to be a description of proposed alteration in watercourses."
Whew! That's a heck of a lot of stuff to do, and a heck of a lot of surveying, engineering and architectural talent to pay for, before being allowed to break ground for a new house. Easily, to meet all these requirements would add thousands of dollars -- if not tens of thousands -- to the cost of a new home. Fortunately for the people of Giles County, we haven't (yet) elected an Executive crazy enough to actually implement and enforce this dastardly scheme...
But that fact, happy though it is for those (like me) who believe in property rights and individual freedom, is not so good news to the handful of people who currently participate in the federally subsidized flood insurance program. Just how many beneficiaries are we talking about? Well, out of the thirty thousand or so folks who live in Giles County, a grand total of FORTY are enrolled in the flood insurance program.
That means, in theory, that the RIGHTS of 29,960 people are being sacrificed in order to BENEFIT 40 people who (let's be honest here) were stupid enough to build in a flood plain, and now want to be bailed out by Uncle Sugardaddy. The big problem is, Uncle Sugardaddy will only bail these 40 "victims" out if the county places all the rest of us in the shackles of zoning. Is that a tradeoff we would make, voluntarily? I propose we put it to a vote, and see just how eager the majority of us are to be buried under paperwork in duplicate, and harassed by a building inspector. The referendum would surely fail, with probably no-one casting "yes" votes than the 40 beneficiaries of the program.
Unfortunately for them, their days of scamming Uncle Sugardaddy wil soon be coming to an end. According to the article I mentioned above, the federal bureaucrats are wise to what's going on, and intend to cancel the floodplain insurance subsidy in Giles County, unless the county "gets with the program," and starts enforcing the draconian and quite expensive regulations. (I believe that EMA Director Pierre Billard has mentioned this fact, elsewhere on this blog.)
Are we prepared to see the forty "victims" cut off? Speaking for myself, I'd rather see these people pay their $15,279 worth of yearly premiums directly to Giles County, and let the county bail them out, in the event they get hit by a future flood. That premium money is insuring less than $4 Million worth of property. If the premiums were invested in a good mutual fund, they might be enough to pay for future claims. The average flood insurance recipient in Giles County is apparently only insured for $100,000 in property. If these properties are, on average, flooded every hundred years, then that's about $38,000 worth of premiums (plus compounded interest) to pay each claim. It might just work, and, in the event that the insurance fund runs low, we could always pay off claims by hiking the property tax rate...
Sound bad? Well, I'd rather see these folks subsidized by local money, than to have the hydra-headed monster of federally mandated zoning placed as a yoke around every landowner's neck. Taxes are bad, true, but zoning plans that require armies of surveyors, engineers, architects and building inspectors represent not only a cost in
lost freedom, but a great financial cost as well.
Speaking of zoning... did anyone watch the Channel Four news tonight? An elderly black lady, 85 years old I believe, has been ordered to tear off the vinyl siding of her charming and quite attractive little house--- or ELSE. She has fought this idiocy for some ten years now, appealing all the way to the Supreme Court. And she faced the very real threat of going to jail for the "contempt" she showed by refusing to ask "how high" when the judge said to jump.
Well I have nothing but contempt for the megalomaniacal dictator in black robes who made this insane ruling. Hey judge! I have
sheer and utter contempt for you, and all you stand for. Whaddya gonna do about that, sweetie? Please, lady, go straight to Hell. Really, I'm not joking here. For treating an innocent senior citizen in such a shabby manner, and for stomping on the basic freedoms that made this country great, I hope she burns. For a long, long time!
Back to local zoning. I strongly advocate that everyone who cares about freedom, for themselves, or their grandkids, only vote for commissioner candidates who promise to repeal the Floodplain Zoning Resolution of 1999. Also make sure that your County Executive candidate promises NOT to enforce this idiotic plan. Maybe, with a little luck, my candidate questionnaire will help us separate the wheat from the chaff. If not, I suggest you call the candidates in your district (I'll be posting their phone numbers) and ASK THEM where they stand. Working together, perhaps we can make a difference in Giles County...
