Update on Franklin County’s Village Law
Brad Ferguson’s attempts to develop a subdivision in Franklin County have been dealt another setback (note clever use of planning and zoning term) by the court. According to the Washington Missourian, the Judge denied a writ of mandamus (I’m not a lawyer, so no idea what that means …) and the case was continued until August 22. Because the repeal of the Village Law is effective August 28, the 22nd will likely be the last attempt under the current law allowing greater ease of incorporation. It clearly appears that these attempts to incorporate are going to fail.
My colleague Dave Roland argued a short time ago that Mr. Ferguson should be allowed to develop his property however he sees fit, and the issues that might arise out of that could be dealt with later. I believe that the people of Franklin County have chosen, in a democratic fashion, to enact a planning and zoning system, and there is nothing wrong with requiring developers to go through that process, even if the process might go to far (if it does, that is a legitimate thing for the courts to decide).
There are clearly reasons why the commission has decided that this development is not right for Franklin County. These reasons likely come down to the effects and costs it will have on people outside of the immediate development area. If the people in Franklin County want to change this, they can elect people who want to get rid of planning and zoning entirely. (Charges that this is some kind of Potemkin Court, and that the good ol’ boys network is out to get someone, are going to be ignored here.)
At a previous eminent domain forum — the arguments from which apply just as well here — a supporter of eminent domain made an absurd statement and left himself open to withering counterattack when he said we need things like eminent domain for private purposes because he “believed in order.” (A very close paraphrase.) Well, his opponent retorted that he believed in freedom, including the freedom not to sell your property if you don’t want to. Well, I have no such concern with order when it comes to issues of property development — and I believe in freedom, too. But I also have a respect for democracy. If the people of Franklin County have chosen a system of planning, residents should either work within the system or work to change the system. The obvious counterargument to this would ask: What if democracy violates a fundamental right, like Jim Crow laws that prevented African-Americans from voting? Of course, there are issues like this that you should never leave to majority rule — but, without going any further, I don’t think zoning rises to that level at all.
“There are clearly reasons why the commission has decided that this development is not right for Franklin County.”
Mr. Stokes would you please state what those “clear reasons” are.
Comment by Brad Ferguson — August 30, 2008 @ 10:20 p.m.
I didn’t say, “clear reasons.” I said, “clearly reasons.” There is a difference. My sentence was not meant to be a laundry list of reasons, but a statement of belief that the officials who made the decisions were not acting out of spite and were not “arbitrary and capricious” to use high sounding legal terms. Talking with people from Franklin County about this plan (as I have), I have heard concerns about the traffic and density of the project. Those are the reasons for the rejection, whether one agrees with the decision or not.
My point is not that the board made the right decision - that is not what I am talking about. The point is that the residents of Franklin County elected to institute planning and zoning regulations, and there was not a legitimate reason to go around that decision by the people of the county via the thankfully undone “village law.”
Comment by David Stokes — September 2, 2008 @ 11:00 a.m.
OK, I’ll agree that I misquoted you. But again I ask what are the reasons? Traffic concerns and density? Please.
“The point is that the residents of Franklin County elected to institute planning and zoning regulations,…”
Kind of like the residents of Missouri elected to have a representative form of government. These representatives then enact laws that apply to all citizens of the state equally. Kind of like that?
“…and there was not a legitimate reason to go around that decision by the people of the county via the thankfully undone “village law.””
The definition below is from Webster’s dictionary.
1. Accordant with law or with established legal forms and requirements; lawful; as, legitimate government; legitimate rights; the legitimate succession to the throne; a legitimate proceeding of an officer; a legitimate heir.
Hmmm. Accordant with law or established legal forms and requirements? Kind of looks like I have a legitimate reason.
Beyond the legal legitimacy of my village I’ll ask you is access to safe drinking water not a legitimate reason? Is having access to adequate water flow for fire protection not a legitimate reason? I ask you sir, how do you know that there was not a “legitimate reason” if you have never spoken to me? But then again, how can I ask such a thing of a person such as yourself when you refer to me as a “jerk” in a previous post and don’t even know me?
Comment by Brad Ferguson — September 15, 2008 @ 7:46 p.m.
OK, last response. I never said I knew the reasons why the proposal was denied by Franklin County. I have no idea if they are good reasons for denial or bad reasons. I have no idea if your proposal is a good one or not. My entire point is that the people of the county elected to install planning and zoning and entrusted certain officials to make these decisions. There are options in the court system to challenge decisions you think are unfair, as I believe you have used. But nothing I have read about any of these cases serves, in my opinion, as a reason for the village law to be an easy end-run around county land-use policies, which may or may not be responsible.
And I never meant to single you out as a jerk. It was meant in a casual, offhand way: “so some jerk can do such-and-such,” etc. That probably does not matter at all and is just splitting hairs. I should not have written it and I apologize.
Comment by David Stokes — September 16, 2008 @ 3:34 p.m.