Don't bring your 'occupied zone' here

Monday evening I attended part of the Kootenai County Building Code discussion at the Kroc Center. This was the second such meeting I have attended with the prior one being before the first of the year.

Government actions and regulations are intended to protect the health, safety and welfare of the people. This proposal had four options, of which three failed to satisfy each. Some speakers favored the most extreme option, which eliminates most protections. Their support seemed to be based on their belief that a building code, perhaps all codes, infringed on their freedom and rights. Their freedom ends where others’ begins.

We do have the right to expect we are safe in any building. Some advised that the code is too onerous, adds cost and delays to construction and is something they do not need as a mandate. I would agree with some of their objections. The solution for some is to abolish the code rather than fix it. There is the old adage that “if it ain’t broke don’t fix it.” The flip side is, if it is broke, fix it.

There are many options which preserve the integrity of our construction and code. The easy solution won’t fix anything and can become a very slippery slope with no place to stop. Some people spoke in favor of maintaining the building code. One individual raised legal questions regarding state limitations which may limit any Kootenai County options. I would hope our county commission chairman or one of the two commissioners would have run this by the county attorney before investing time and our money. I know that review was mentioned at the prior public hearing I attended but I heard no mention of our county attorney’s opinion, which should have been provided.

I understand some hybrid option was approved where some people can “opt out” and others must comply. That doesn’t sound like an equitable solution to me. I would hope as a minimum, any person opting out will be required to record a document acknowledging construction was completed without a Kootenai County-issued building permit and such recorded document would appear in any title search. If this is such a good process, such notification should not be a problem.

My belief is that codes to protect us all are necessary and should be enforced. If there is a problem with the implementation due to government staff or wording in the ordinance, then our commissioners should fix it, not eliminate the code.

I heard an interesting phrase at both hearings. The argument was that these people had left the “occupied zone” to come here to Idaho to get away from the problems there. I assume the problems were population density, traffic, crime, diversity — both ethnic and racial — and perhaps other concerns. In recent articles I have read it seems the “occupied zone” is somewhere is California.

One article which appeared in BuzzFeed interviewed people and indicated that many of these transients were former police officers, firefighters and others. Each of these people found Idaho to be the place for them.

I too moved here a couple of years ago from a large metropolitan area in the southeastern United States. I assume as such I previously lived in a different “occupied zone,” which provided my values and a good lifestyle. There are several reasons I relocated here including family, the beauty of the Northwest, seasonal changes (although I don’t like the cold weather), and having recently retired, seeking a slower-paced lifestyle. I still miss my old community and the people there. I do visit each year.

Again, use of the phrase “occupied zone” remains strange to me. Idaho was occupied prior to my arrival and that of many others. Those occupants had lifestyles and values dating back several generations, which many still hold today. I think of Idaho and the Northwest as rugged individualism, but also concern for the well-being of others. The longtime residents, the Idahoans, still claim those values and appreciate the beauty of this region. These are the people I am drawn to and respect. I try to share those values.

I am not so sure some of the newer arrivals do. If the articles I have read are correct, many of the newer arrivals were fortunate to sell their longtime homes for a good price in the “occupied zone.” That money along with pensions, Social Security and Medicare allow them a lifestyle many worked hard to earn. Are they now in effect denying others the same opportunities? It seems the effort to seek their definition of freedom may mostly serve them.

When I drive north on U.S. 95 and see the increasing traffic, big box stores, and fast food chains, I wonder did they leave this behind or bring it with them? Growth happens in desirable places to live such as Idaho and it doesn’t have to be bad. Government exists to ensure the health, safety and welfare of the people, which includes the growth of the community. That means we all need to work together to help each other. Preference or exemption for certain individuals under the building code may not seem like much but it’s a start.

If you come to Idaho, try to accept the values of those who occupied this area and made it such a desirable place. That’s what I try to do as a newer arrival. I am not so sure many others feel the same way.

•••

Phil Ward is a Coeur d’Alene resident.