Rural issues, real solutions
It's hard to argue with common sense.
That's what we see from the works of Kootenai County residents calling themselves the Rural Property Owners Committee. Put aside politics for a moment and we think you'll agree: The RPOC's suggestions deserve the Kootenai County Board of Commissioners' serious consideration.
This group of 27 citizens - who represent the roughly 30 percent of Kootenai County residents directly affected by the county's master plan and land-use enforcement code - have made the following recommendations.
1. The proposed code is too radical in scope and change, foundationally flawed and should be set aside now without further funding of the consultant, Kendig Keast Collaborative.
2. Any reform of existing ordinances must respect Idaho law regarding the primacy of property rights.
3. The current zoning and subdivision code must be examined in light of the 2010 Comprehensive Plan policies for new codes and the principles above for areas where incremental improvements can be made, so economic harms are mitigated.
4. Private property owners' plans and expectations for their use of property must be respected.
5. The current zoning map should be reviewed for areas where adjustments are needed to accord with current private plans and to enhance economic growth, but only "where appropriate." Idaho Code 67-6511
6. A land use judicial function should be created in the judiciary branch to help resolve land use disputes. This venue would function similar to a small claims court, where plaintiffs could pay a small fee and appear with the defendant, both without counsel, to plead their case to a final judgment.
On point 1, commissioners this week cut future code ties with Kendig Keast Collaborative based on a recommendation from their planning and zoning commission.
On point 2, we note that "respected" does not mean agreed upon, but it's the first step in effective communication and consideration.
On point 6, work might need to be done. Dispute resolution measures already are in place, but a better way to keep small problems from becoming big ones is attractive.
Not all complexities of government can be simplified by a wave of the wishful wand. It's also likely the message from this group will automatically be discounted or even opposed because some of its members have made political enemies. But we think there's merit in the words and the intent of RPOC, which has made a strong pitch for practicality and fairness in addressing the county's land use rules. There's a constructive approach to all of this, a tone of cooperation rather than combativeness. In that framework maybe the county will find an ally in rural residents who might formerly have been adversaries.