by Carolyn Chase
he County Board of Supervisors afternoon session on
January 24th heard testimony regarding proposals to repeal the Resource
Protection Ordinance. [SDET 1/96].
The RPO protects sensitive habitats, floodplains, steep slopes, wetlands
and historic and prehistoric sites from inappropriate development on private
county land. The Board voted 4 to 1 to continue the item, with Supervisor
Horn opposing.
"While many people at the hearing were seeking
immediate repeal of the ordinance today, it was clear that there had not
been adequate time to consider all points of view. The motion the board
has approved will guarantee that all interested citizens have time to analyze
the RPO's complex issues and documents before us," said County Board
of Supervisor Chairman Ron Roberts.
The property rights proponents were there in force wearing
large "PROTECT THE 5th" stickers, blue-on-blue lapel ribbons,
and attached messages along the lines of, 'this blue ribbon represents the
suffering of a property owner trying to deal with the RPO.' There were at
least 100 of them, filling almost all the seats in the hall. Folks with
"Please Continue RPO" stickers, numbered about 30 to 40.
Ron Roberts called the meeting into session at 2:17pm
and moved quickly to the report from the Planning Commission chairman who
set the tone. He focused on the fact that in the name of "streamlining
RPO," currently a 16-page ordinance, the Planning Commission was confronted
with 92 pages of new implementing regulations, the new 11-page RPO itself,
192 pages of staff reports and 1 inch of comments from others. The Planning
Commission had voted 6 to 1 to continue and refer back to planning and sponsor
groups.
Key quotes from Supervisors:
Public comments at the meeting were relatively evenly split between those
for and against the RPO. The audience realized a continuance was destined,
although some anti-RPO individuals expressed contempt and disgust for the
process. On the whole, the property rights folks were agitated and more
flamboyant. One individual started out with the memorable comment, "No
blacks, no Jews only 50 years ago Adolph Hitler was confiscating property
in just the ways all of you on this Board, with the exception of Supervisor
Horn, are."
I was profoundly reminded of the old saying, "if
looks could kill." There was a palpable feeling of hatred projected
toward the federal agency employees who testified that they would provide
staff to support evaluations of the RPO vs. state and federal regulations.
When one audience member laughed out loud at Horn's
assertion that "no ordinance harmed the environment," the anti-RPO
forces around them quickly responded amongst themselves, "He's right,
he's right," as if to counter the expressed astonishment at Horn's
point of view.
After all, if he is right, then why all the bother?
The reason for the bother is that ordinances are needed to protect the
environment. Without that protection, the environment is subject to any
and all types of destruction and transformations.
And what about the people? According to the RPO opponents,
it's their property and their environment; they own it and ought to be able
to do what they want with it without government interference. These individuals
are far beyond the point that assurances from government that their land
will not be taken without just compensation can make any difference. By
regulating their land uses at all, we are taking away from them. And with
complete distrust of the system, they have already decided that even when
there is compensation, it would not be just.
Having had family property condemned for public right-of-way,
I empathize with their feelings. My family "lost" their property
for the good of a freeway. The state paid for it and there was no choice;
it was deemed to be for the common good. But every time I drive past it,
I remember that it was once our land but now serves a higher purpose. And
now, 20 years later, shouldn't the common good of conserving natural resources
and managing them appropriately at least count for as much as the common
good of a freeway?
But dreams of what you want to do with your own lands
die hard. It seems that in many ways the property-rights advocates are mourning
the loss of the freedom of their youth. It seems un-American to them that
other people should have a say as to what happens to resources on their
land. Within their lifetimes, it used to be OK to do things on your own
property with little concern for the impacts on others or the scarcity of
the resource. There were not so many people - and there were many more open
spaces.
But those days are gone.
To those of us trying to protect natural places, it's
democracy at work. We see the purpose of government to protect diminishing
resources against destruction, wherever the resources happen to be.
But the property rights people are not going away, nor
should they. Nor should we.
If resources are to be protected for the future, we
are going to have to stand up for that consistently in the coming months
and years as the pressures of growth continue to bring these conflicts to
the forefront. Please contact me at 272-0347 if you would like to help in
any way or are able to schedule a presentation to any interested groups.
