Haggling continues over private property rights - Coeur d'Alene Press: Political

Haggling continues over private property rights

Kootenai republican group calls special meeting for Tuesday

Font Size:
Default font size
Larger font size

Posted: Monday, July 9, 2012 12:00 am

Concern is still running high of threatened property rights in Kootenai County's rewrite of its building and development laws.

The Kootenai County Republican Central Committee has scheduled a special meeting Tuesday at 7 p.m. to discuss the Unified Land Use Code, and possibly approve a resolution opposing the county's direction with building and land use restrictions.

"It will be a resolution of whether they are in favor of or not in favor of the public land use code," said Neil Oliver, KCRCC chairman. "I'm sure there will be a lot of discussion."

A KCRCC legislative committee proposed a draft of the resolution at a recent meeting, Oliver said, and the draft was directed back for revision.

He is calling a special meeting on the revised document to see the issues addressed, he said.

"There's a number of them who are concerned," he said of KCRCC members.

Members' hang-ups "always come back to private property rights and use of property," he said, adding that he is trying to remain neutral and preferred not to disclose his own thoughts.

The revised resolution was not ready on Friday.

The KCRCC already passed a resolution a few months ago that cautioned the commissioners to be careful with the ULUC. The document stated that the new land use code "if not carefully drafted, can erode both our private property rights, and the general welfare, by saddling property owners with improper regulations" and unnecessary costs.

Matt Roetter, KCRCC precinct 18 committeeman, said he hasn't perused the contents of the ongoing code rewrite. But he is still passionate against restricting property rights, he said.

"That's why I chose to live in the west. The more people, you get more government control," said Roetter, who doesn't live in the unincorporated county land affected by the ULUC. "You have to plan for growth, but that has to be tampered with not stepping all over private property rights."

The ULUC is intended to implement the county Comprehensive Plan adopted in 2010, which provides a vision for future development in the county.

Folks have been able to read the rewrite and provide input all along at www.kccode.com.

Some have also tossed out concerns of influence by Agenda 21, an action plan adopted at a United Nations conference to accelerate sustainable development around the world.

Roetter and Oliver both said they don't know much about it and it doesn't top their concerns.

Scott Clark, Community Development Director, agreed property rights are "a very big deal" in Kootenai County.

"Everyone involved in the process acknowledges and wants to preserve rights," Clark said.

He reminded that the code rewrite intends to correct contradicting and confusing regulations, and expedite bureaucratic processes.

"It's our hope that these new regulations actually will do a better job preserving property rights," Clark said.

Commissioner Dan Green said the other commissioners are intent on protecting individual property rights in the county.

"We respect the property rights not only of the landowner and the applicant, but of the person next door," Green said. "We encourage people to continue participating in the process."

He has been given information about Agenda 21, he said, but he assured that outside influences will not be imposed on North Idaho.

"As long as people participate on the local level, North Idaho values will be reflected in our ensuing development ordinances," Green said.

More about

More about

More about

  • Discuss

Welcome to the discussion.


  • inclined posted at 6:52 pm on Mon, Jul 9, 2012.

    inclined Posts: 682

    Some will say, “other world”. In principle, in fact, we can read these and get the sense of the agencies, the lawyers, the agencies, the laws, the thinking, words and dynamics of land use dynamics http://www.calthorpe.com/news/new-land-use-laws-message-build-near-transit


    Idaho Land Use & Development Law report

    The UN and property rights

    This site from the American Planning Assoc., with title Saving America’s Open Land, but… the article beckons you to remember their site and links and early land us doctrines going back to the early 1900’s, Housing Act, Determinism issues.

    Public land, historical land injustices and the new Constitution

  • JoeIdaho posted at 3:27 pm on Mon, Jul 9, 2012.

    JoeIdaho Posts: 2841

    Flash is FOR MORE restrictions on property rights, and uses "bad developer" as a mantra for it. It's a TYPICAL Liberal spiel; "bad bad developer/etc is going to ruin the coutryside; so we all need to lose our rights in order to "protect" each other's land".
    Just spit it out, Liberal. You want MORE rules & zoning, you want MORE control over other people's land.

  • Flash Gordon posted at 1:39 pm on Mon, Jul 9, 2012.

    Flash Gordon Posts: 1337

    The wording in he comprehensive plan gives the commissioners the legal right to make any decision about property rights they so choose. The comprehensive plan is a "political" document ....that means....follow the money trail and whose interests are being served.

    The rural nature of Kootenai County is being(and not so slowly anymore)eaten away by developers and land owners that want to make money at the expense of their "neighbors". The hearing examiners and commissioners along with the county procedures on any issue that comes before them is stacked way against those who have legitimate complaints about what a developer/landowner wants to do "commercially" with their property out in the county.

  • the floorist posted at 11:16 am on Mon, Jul 9, 2012.

    the floorist Posts: 331

    It is odd that all this regulatory geek speak is brewing from the county with little mention of proposed infrastructure and the necessary zoning restrictions that will apply...ie...no one from the county will say anything about a hwy. 95 cut-off that is absolutely inevitable. This little technicality is most certainly a huge precept to this ULUC...just no one wants to talk about it.

    It follows what I referred to earlier and Mr. Hertzog said about the wording of the codes and reasoning of certain restrictions. Setting standards for commercial development should be strictly separated from residential, and of course, industrial infrastructure. Impact residential is governed by covenants while rural zoning bylaws are already in place for sub-division ordinances, mining/timber restrictions, water rights...etc. etc...(in Kootenai county, I mean)...and commercial development is what needs serious considerations. Changing rural residential zoning restrictions to satisfy compliance with new codes is literally a "Pantera's Box" (sic) that shouldn't be opened. You open a bag of chit, you know what to expect...

    So...the way I see it, the county is setting the table for dinner that'll be ready in ten years and they don't even have a menu...but it appears they're torn between the fish or the chicken...

  • Ziggy posted at 9:16 am on Mon, Jul 9, 2012.

    Ziggy Posts: 1179

    Some of the same people who are yelling "keep my property rights" are also yelling because their bays on this lake are full of weeds. Why? Because their neighbors' septic tanks, put right by the shore have failed. Because stormwater carries nutrients into the lake. Because people fertilize their lawns right down to the lakeshore. These invasive and native plants which have taken over bays so that people can no longer use their boats or swim or fish need nutrients and the septics, stormwater, and fertilizer carry those nutrients right into the lake to feed those plants. I think if people have not seen one of these bays choked with weeds, they don't realize the damage that happens when there are no setback laws. People have actually drowned caught in these weeds.

  • ancientemplar posted at 7:39 am on Mon, Jul 9, 2012.

    ancientemplar Posts: 1202

    He has been given information about Agenda 21, he said, but he assured that outside influences will not be imposed on North Idaho.

    "As long as people participate on the local level, North Idaho values will be reflected in our ensuing development ordinances," Green said.

    Yet we have an outsider, Todd Messenger from Kendig-Keast directing the show and writing the script. How's that for no outside influences?

  • Lumpos posted at 7:28 am on Mon, Jul 9, 2012.

    Lumpos Posts: 20

    "We respect the property rights not only of the landowner and the applicant, but of the person next door "
    Wow what a powerful statement - What this guy is saying is individual property owner does not have any property rights - his neighbor does. I am glad we voted this guy in for 4 more years and I think he will be guy pushing this agenda as 4 years is a long time for re election. The other 2 commissioners are up for re election 2 years from now and they will be very careful as their re election will be a referendum. We should have tossed this Green guy last time.

  • JoeIdaho posted at 7:10 am on Mon, Jul 9, 2012.

    JoeIdaho Posts: 2841

    BEWARE Idahoans.
    This is Kootenai County working desperately to become California.
    Stop them, now.

  • Tim Herzog posted at 6:46 am on Mon, Jul 9, 2012.

    Tim Herzog Posts: 362

    I have sat in on several of these meetings so far and one must realize that this process is creating a draft plan that will be rolled out to the public. We do need to carefully watch this process. I don't believe this plan is part of Agenda 21 or a subversive conspiracy plot like many alarmists do, but careful attention must be given to the wording because we will have to live with the new ordinances.

    At one meeting i was disturbed by the fact that even the number of trees, types and spacing was discussed. And this refers to our rural property areas, not cities! Unless a planned development in the county is governed by (CCR's), codes, covenants and restrictions like subdivisions to protect values of other like property owners, this should not even be mentioned.

    It will be a cold day in Hades when someone tells me what trees to plant and how many on my rural acreage! References like this in the ordinance draft reminds me of the regulatory language that was included in the comprehensive plan drafts that took 4 years and about five drafts before it was finally adopted.

    Expect much resistance to the proposed draft plan when it is finalized because rural property owners chose to live in unincorporated areas for a reason, less regulation and more freedom from restrictive ordinances.

    Tim Herzog
    Former candidate, District 1, County Commissioner

  • voxpop posted at 4:08 am on Mon, Jul 9, 2012.

    voxpop Posts: 738

    Oh come now Alecia, did Roetter really say "tampered?" More likely "tempered" - right? Ah well, not like we haven't seen this sort of thing before.

default avatar
Welcome to the site! Login or Signup below.
Not you?||
Logout|My Dashboard