I thought this reply was also worth sharing. I also have to agree with Rosa's concern about another layer of bureaucracy. It seems like changing the laws, or protecting the laws we have, are the first order of business (political power).
Thanks for sharing your thoughts,
Here's my opinion on this:
I have some concerns with the idea. First, in areas like mine there would be very little chance of the board of supervisors appointing such a board. If they were to do so it would of course be populated with progressives. There is no supportable requirement that this property rights council would have to go to a libertarian think tank for its opinions. Of course the progressive board members would go to the Natural Resources Defense Council. You'd have yet another layer of quasi-government to go through in your quest for justice, and you wouldn't get it.
Steve's belief that this is necessary because the council or board is too afraid to stand up to the planning department and has no support for private property rights unless it can produce a white paper from the Cato Institute is difficult to accept, though I know that they mean well.
If this board is to work it should not be appointed by the government. It should be the people's court. And of course it would have no power, as the PRC will also have no power. But it won't be fair if it's appointed by the very board that you have to fight your way through to get a hearing. We don't need any more appointed boards. This board would be responsible for 'educating' the board of supervisors on what our private property rights are. You'd have to pay a 'free market attorney' for an opinion. Would that then absolve the board of supes from having to know what our private property rights are? In addition to that, it would be a tribunal making a determination on your private property rights. We have a Constitution for that. I wouldn't even feel comfortable with a 'citizens advisory council' because we have had such groups here in Sonoma County and they are progressives who insert themselves between the citizens and the government. Looks like Communitarianism to me and could be used against the people.
I know that we are looking for something that will work for all of us, but I don't feel confident that this is it. I am concerned that much of our energy will go to this instead of directly removing ICLEI and purging our General Plans. That is not to say that it might not be helpful in some areas of the country.
What do you think, Frank?
On Thu, Oct 27, 2011 at 7:05 PM, Frank M Penwell <email@example.com> wrote:
I felt this was worth sharing,
From: Debra Tash [mailto:firstname.lastname@example.org]
Sent: Thursday, October 27, 2011 4:38 PM
To: Frank M Penwell
Subject: Property Rights Council...
Here are some interesting documents. We are running the Legal Authority
letter by an attorney we know at PFL (Pacific Legal Foundation) down here.
This was setup in Idaho by one of their commissioners to help protect
property rights. You can see the Legal Authority letter is geared towards
county government but this can be used to set up a council at a city level.
If you look at the Bonner Idaho website you can see what these councils are
set up to do. Here is the Bonner Idaho
Click on the graph link to see how they are set up to vet zoning problems
and new regulations. Bonner was the first county to institute this program
in the nation. They call their supervisors over there commissioners, like
you do. You would need to get a legal opinion letter to bring to a friendly
commissioner. He/She will need that to proceed with the formation of the
To get on the conference call list contact: Karen Bracken at
email@example.com They will be having another conference call next
Wednesday. There were people on the call last night from all over the
Call with any questions you may have, (805)529-8108.
Many warm regards and good wishes,
Rosa Koire, ASA
Post Sustainability Institute