CODE: Shackled with permission

To say “some” property owners are “wary” is putting it mildly. In reality, hundreds and hundreds, if not thousands, of property owners are extremely angry and awake to the fact that the proposed Unified Land Use Code is a tool being used to control growth, social equity and extreme environmentalism. A chosen few discuss and dictate what OTHER people can do with their property. Messenger feels he needs to teach us what being a good neighbor means. Don’t we have measures in place to address infractions of the good neighbor code?

“Simpler” means more CONTROLLED.

Current ordinances are broken, as their implementation was based on federal law (’70s) during the government’s initial advances into control of private land use and usurping rights of property owners. Rather than repealing what didn’t work, we suffocate ourselves with the ULUC, advancing even further into soft fascism. “You own property, we’ll tell you what you are allowed to do. We know better and care more.”

Messenger admits the ULUC draft is bigger than current codes. We happen to know it’s close to 300 pages larger, not counting the pictures inserted which are worth “1,000 words.” A gigantic recipe book works, according to Messenger, if the meatloaf recipe is fantastic.

Scott Clark, director, encourages review of the technical behemoth that gives him a LOT of power. It also removes responsibility from the county commissioners because they don’t want to be bothered by administering over a hearing. Neither the director, nor the commissioners, are really interested in the average citizen comments, as they are determined to see this through and have invested so much time and money. They no longer have an election to worry about.

Appeal to the commissioners is still allowed. Why this would be necessary, I don’t know, as we’ve been promised exactly what we want because the code is about, in Messenger’s words, “... finding all pathways to ‘YES’ that we can ...”

Many may take this personally, due to years sucked up in this process. But to all of you, committees and property owners, I ask: If the ULUC is so gracious and permitting, why is it better than a minimalist approach to regulations; ie: do what you’d like unless you harm someone/thing? We need permission to do everything? The large majority of property owners are good stewards, respectful, law abiding; why are we being SHACKLED with permission? If the code allows all we could possibly want, yet requires permission for something not created yet, isn’t that the same as denying the undiscovered potential of Kootenai?

COURTENAY ELLISON

Post Falls