LAND-USE SUBCOMMITTEE
RECOMMENDATIONS
From information
gathered at town meetings, surveys, and many conversations with Lee County
residents, this Subcommittee unanimously recommends that under no
circumstances should this study be considered a platform upon which zoning
and land-use controls can be implemented.
It is also
strongly recommended that land-use planning and zoning commissions not
be established in Lee County.
According
to this Subcommittee's survey, there is overwhelming opposition to county
zoning by resident landowners in the unincorporated areas of Lee County. The
members of this Subcommittee concur in the opinion that the Supervisors
should consider this report a mandate rather than a mere recommendation.
During the
course of this study, Subcommittee members spoke to many state, county, and
city officials, as well as regional planning commission members. These public
servants were asked if they knew of any studies that had been done concerning
the negative impact to landowners when zoning and land-use controls were
imposed; not one study could be cited. This Subcommittee recommends that when
decisions of this magnitude are proposed, all aspects of such proposals be
explored thoroughly: both the negative as well as the positive. If zoning and
land-use restrictions are imposed, it appears easy for officials to change
the rules. This is often referred to as the "slippery slope"
theory. If regulations are imposed, we quickly slide downhill into a thick
morass of rapidly changing layers of restrictions.
The Subcommittee
further recommends that the citizens of Lee County continue to use their
private property as they have done in the past. This is guaranteed in the
Constitution of the United States of America. Amendment Five states in part,
"No person shall be deprived of life liberty, or property without due
process of law; nor shall private property be taken for public use without
just compensation." Amendment Fourteen states in part, "No state
shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or
immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any state deprive any
person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to
any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws."
The fourteenth Amendment has been broadened by judicial interpretation to
become an important weapon in the continuing defense of the civil rights and
individual liberties of all Americans. Its due process clause is generally
regarded as protecting all rights guaranteed in the Bill of Rights from
state invasion.
After concluding the
survey, examining the respondents' comments, and deliberating the
consequences associated with a proposed change in the county's current statutes,
this subcommittee cannot endorse any movement toward land-use restrictions
that would forfeit the liberties and freedoms outlined in Iowa's state and
federal constitutions. It is this Subcommittee's recommendation that any and
all political inquiries into land-use restriction for any purpose, at the
present time or in the future, should be defiantly opposed.
LAND USE SUBCOMMITTEE
MEMBERS' COMMENTS
The Lee County
Supervisors contracted with SEIRPC to help facilitate a comprehensive study,
including land-use controls. This Subcommittee questions to what extent the
county officials researched the rural residents' needs or wants before taking
these steps.
The
Land-Use Subcommittee feels that zoning and land-use controls are a thinly
disguised attempt by governmental officials and special interest groups to
control the citizens. This effort is in total opposition to the U.S.
Constitution (Amendments Five and Fourteen), and to the concept of free
enterprise.
The
Comprehensive Plan has been presented to the citizens of Lee County as being
both a way to spur sorely needed economic growth in the county while
minimizing the use of land, that some consider to be annoying or detrimental,
for the ultimate greater good of the county. This, they say, will be done by
designating land-use within a certain area or zone and managing that use
according to the parameters laid out by the Comprehensive Plan. Neither claim
is true.
The
designating of land-use under the parameters outlined by a Comprehensive Plan
will not spur economic growth for two reasons. First, the Comprehensive Plan
is not a plan as is commonly understood, i.e. something that provides a
roadmap to a certain goal. It is only a generalized document that outlines
broad categories that the county is interested in monitoring and affecting,
and gives approximate goals pertaining to those areas, but no specific
recommendations. It is simply not detailed enough to provide anyone looking
at it with enough information to make decisions, and there is no possible way
to use the Plan as a blueprint for drawing businesses to the county and
creating jobs. In reality, the main function that can be demonstrated
pertains to the legal arena; it serves to clear the necessary legal hurdle
for a county to designate land use, i.e. zone. In other words, before it can
zone, the county must adopt a basic outline and goals for what they will be
zoning. However, this is not an economic strategy, and to promote the
Comprehensive Plan as such is inaccurate.
Second,
since adopting a Comprehensive Plan in the legal and practical sense would be
only to clear the way for county zoning, the real issue in terms of economic
activity is the claim that land-use will bring economic activity in the form
of jobs, businesses, and skilled labor to the county. The Subcommittee can
see no connection between economic growth and designating land-use. This can
be demonstrated aptly, as we all are aware of areas designated for commercial
use that have sat undeveloped for years in Lee County, while at the same time
businesses have come to the county in areas that are not zoned. Obviously,
other factors are involved that draw businesses to the area than simply
designating land usable for commercial purpose.
To actually bring
economic activity to our area, what is needed is an economic strategy to
provide the actual blueprint to drawing businesses to the county. As a
general rule, this will involve two "free market" type of
incentives, either promoting the assets and benefits of the county to the
prospective business, or demonstrating that the county offers a lower
relative cost of doing business vs. other locales, in order to entice
businesses to come to our county to set up shop. These incentives and
advantages once identified are then presented in a promotional package
offered to businesses in a way that differentiates us from other
jurisdictions, as mentioned in the preceding paragraph. Neither the
Comprehensive Plan nor zoning can do that.
Furthermore, in terms
of the issue of land use for economic activity, any zoning that will come
from the Comprehensive Plan will designate all land use, not just commercial
ones, and therefore affects all uses of land, not just economic. If one of
the goals of the county is simply to bring economic growth to our locale, it
follows then that it is not necessary to have blanket control by the county
government over every acre in the county. To generate economic activity only
requires the county to target its efforts to specific areas. Generally, this
is considered to be: transportation, schools, parks, and heavy industry (due
to noise, traffic, and emissions issues). Roads and parks are generally
handled by the federal and state governments, and to a lesser extent by the
county; schools and heavy industry are generally handled by the county and
cities, and to a lesser extent the State. In terms of land-use for these
categories, none require zoning to achieve the goal of excluding land-use to
one type. Any desire by local and state governments to obtain needed property
for this purpose can be satisfied simply by buying the particular ground
needed on the open market from a willing seller, either directly through a
third party, or through options taken out on the land. All other economic
(and non-economic) issues of land-use can be handled within the current legal
framework laid down by state and federal governments, and left unzoned by the
county.
In fact, it is in this
regard that zoning can be harmful to economic activity. Since zoning
designates an area to one type of land-use only, all other uses are excluded.
As a result, economic activity is choked in those areas where it is not
allowed, thereby limiting the amount of activity that can occur within it on
a countywide basis. This hurts small businesses, and home-based small
businesses, in particular. It suppresses the entrepreneurial creativity of
the citizens, limits the tax base, and hurts us competitively with other
locales that don't have zoning in terms of drawing businesses and skilled
labor. Some will attempt to diffuse this fact by saying that the county would
be "willing to work" with people who desire to start businesses in
non-commercially zoned areas, but in reality that promise would be no
guarantee of doing so, and in fact is wide open to abuse and corruption.
Because of the total power the zoning board would have over land use, such
incentives can be used as a carrot or stick, and leaves the county open to
ambitious people with a predetermined ignorant, corrupt, or even radical
agenda that is completely irrelevant or hostile to what is best for the
county.
Even if that corruption could
be avoided, that still leaves the basic downfall of zoning in terms of
economic activity. By restricting economic activity through zoning, the
economic makeup of the county will reflect the ideas of a narrow few who sit
on a zoning board, instead of a diverse makeup based on the ideas and
creativity of the entire population. That not only limits creativity, but
multiplies the risk of failure if bad decisions are made. This fact is
self-evident: no one person or group of persons can possibly have the depth
of knowledge to know how to make decisions for every type of business in
every type of field. Therefore, no zoning board could adequately make the
necessary land-use decisions for the whole county. The Subcommittee feels
that the best avenue for economic growth is that if the county needs land to
be designated for a certain use, purchase it on the open market, and leave
land-use decisions up to the property owner within the limits of the law.
Historically, the best results are found when decisions are left with able,
trained, experienced, and knowledgeable citizens, rather than bureaucrats
ruling on areas in which they have no expertise.
Finally,
zoning opens the door to layer upon layer of bureaucracy, with all the
associated fees, permits, penalties, regulations, paperwork, and hoop-jumping
that comes with it. As was stated earlier, one of the ways to create economic
growth is to provide a low-cost environment to do business. By adding all the
above-mentioned bureaucratic hurdles, it adds to the cost of doing business,
making the county less attractive compared to other locales. In today's
competitive world, rural counties such as Lee cannot afford to create high
barriers that drive away businesses and jobs.
By remaining free of zoning and land-use controls, the Subcommittee
members are confident Lee County has a distinct advantage over other counties
that are so restricted. The Subcommittee members agree that the best system
for economic development is the free enterprise system. (See survey question
12.) Zoning lowers property values by limiting its uses. Growth and
prosperity in the regulated area will be limited. Zoning and land-use
controls eliminate all property buyers, except for a potential buyer
interested in the one government-approved use. If the Lee County Board of
Supervisors adds additional unnecessary (land-use) rules and regulations, an
unfavorable economic atmosphere will be created that could deter industrial
growth or start-up. It should be noted that Lee County is unique in that it
is bordered by counties from other states (Missouri and Illinois) who have
very limited building codes along with no land-use restrictions. This has led
to the enticement out of Lee County of at least one successful taxpaying
local industry.
Zoning and land-use
controls are not an inevitable result of progress. These governmental
controls are an experiment in centralized control that has failed, often with
devastating consequences.
Also,
zoning will not protect the citizens of Lee County from "problem land
owners." Throwing aside that the term itself is very subjective, to say
that zoning will stop undesirable uses of the land is not accurate. Zoning
regulations, unlike laws enacted in our legislatures, are not passed by
elected bodies of representatives and then codified into the existing law.
They can easily be changed on a case by case basis with variances and
exceptions, leaving them wide open to lobbyists and anyone able to influence
the zoning board into making the change. Again, an apt example of this can be
seen in any zoned city in Lee County; it is obvious that zoning does not
prevent problem landowners, nor maintain what the zone was designated as.
The numbers
does not justify using “problem landowners” as justification for zoning.
Rarely in a county are more than five percent of the landowners considered to
be at the level of what would be considered a nuisance. Generally, the worst
damage they can do would be to affect the property of those bordering them. A
zoning board, however, can mess up an entire county with the majority vote of
a board that is usually less than ten people in number. The Subcommittee
thinks it is unfair for 95 percent of the people to be punished and
controlled for the five percent who are the problem, and we believe that the
legal structure as it exists is adequate to deal with hazardous or nuisance
landowner actions.
If the
county needs to designate an area for one particular use, it can do so by
various means on the open market. First, developers and other investors can
supply capital along with or instead of the county for buying and improving
land to meet the specifications for that particular purpose (for example,
building an industrial park). Not only would this defray the expense of
buying and developing property, but it may enable the county to achieve a
return on its investment and help its financial position, yet give the
management details over to experienced and qualified people.
Secondly, it could take
out options on a particular property. The county would contract with a
landowner of a particular property to have the option to buy his property
should he/she choose to sell it within an agreed-to period of time. This
would make the county first in line for the property should the seller want
to dispose of it.
If the county
supervisors want to have land designated for a particular use, the best way
to do that is through a willing seller. By getting title to the land through
compensation of the fair value of the property from the seller, the county
would earn the right to control how it is used. This is a better option than
zoning, which gives control of the property to the county, but makes the
owner bear the burden of taxes, upkeep, maintenance, and all other costs.
Since the actual amount of property the county needs to control is minimal
anyway, this more targeted, free market approach to land acquisition and use
would be better suited to both the needs of the county and the will of the
citizens.
A land-use plan would
empower the government with an extension of the regulatory power they already
have in the areas of highways (DOT), schools, parks (DNR), and environ-
mental controls (EPA). These entities would then exercise control into the
areas of agriculture, residential construction, retail business and
industrial development in the unincorporated areas of Lee County.
Since the recent
terrorist attacks on this great country, the government has asked U.S.
military personnel to risk the ultimate sacrifice to protect American
liberties and to assure that people in foreign countries be accorded the same
freedoms. As the world moves towards freedom and prosperity, this
Subcommittee maintains that we should not take a step backwards by imposing
land-use policies in the form of zoning. We should not grant the local
government any powers which have the potential of being abused.
The
citizens, through this survey, have made it clear that they do not want to
see zoning enacted, and we believe that the county supervisors doing so would
mean political suicide. The Land-Use Subcommittee hopes the county officials
will listen not only to our recommendations, but also to the will of the
citizens and not enact countywide zoning.
CONCLUSION
Zoning
and land-use regulations effectively shift control of private property to
government officials (zoning boards, planning commissions, and other special
interest groups). Instead of citizens being free to use their property as
they think best, zoning makes the assumption that any use is prohibited
unless proven otherwise. A permit is needed for most land uses. Instead of
actually owning the land, the owner has only the right to pay rent on it in
the form of property taxes. He legally owns the property, but for practical
purposes, if he cannot use his property as he sees fit, it is not really his.
Modern zoning laws
presume that no citizen has a right to control his own land, but that every
citizen has a right to control his neighbor's.
The United States was
founded on the principles of individual freedom, free markets, private
property, and limited government. When the government is involved in the
issue of land-use, it should be to protect -not destroy- the inherent and
inalienable rights of its citizens.
Perhaps the motto of
this great State of Iowa says it best. The words, which are proudly
displayed, on our State Flag proclaim: "Our liberties we prize and our
rights we will maintain." Lee County should do no less.
EXTRA-TERRITORIAL ZONING
Extra-territorial
zoning by incorporated cities is outlined in the Iowa code, Title IX, Chapter
414, Section 23. [1] In terms of the county, the Iowa
legislature has not given the county authority in the extra-territorial
zoning process, with one exception: if the county is currently zoned or
should become zoned in the future. Although laws have been proposed to allow
citizens within the proposed area to have recourse against extra-territorial
zoning, as of this writing they have not been passed. [2] The one other
possible collaboration is addressed by the law would be to contract a
non-binding 28E agreement between the city and county and have the county
advise the city on the zoning implementation process. Therefore the Land Use
subcommittee believes that there are no specific policy recommendations that
can be made to the county, other than that as the issue of county zoning has
been discussed previously in this report, the committee does not believe that
county zoning should be presented to the citizens as a ‘lesser of two evils’
to extra-territorial zoning.
There
is a need to give a review to the extra-territorial zoning issue in detail
because of the reality that it has been placed into the code by the Iowa
legislature and is (strictly in a legal sense) a legitimate instrument that
can be used by cities. That use will
at the same time have a profound effect on land use of citizens’ property in
the unincorporated areas under county jurisdiction, which falls within the
scope of this report. Due to a the lack
of county supervision written into 414.23, the citizens in extraterritorial
areas are given little recourse in the matter, and we wish to provide
information and recommendations to citizens in the future who may fall within
a proposed area of extra-territorial zoning.
An extra-territorial zoning initiative has been proposed only by the
city of Keokuk, but we believe the conclusions drawn from an analysis of the
initiative can be applied in general. The following analysis is drawn from
the following documents: Keokuk Comprehensive Development Plan, October 1999,
Extraterritorial Zoning Study, January 2001, Report to the O.K. (Outside
Keokuk) Committee, July 14, 2000, ISU Retail Trade Analysis, Spring 2000, as
well as the experience and knowledge of the subcommittee members.
To
begin, a history of the issue in Lee County is necessary. The Keokuk
extra–territorial initiative was first stated in the 1999 update of the city
Comprehensive Plan. According to the Plan, the objective of zoning outside
the city limits of Keokuk was to ‘enhance the orderly development during the
planning period and compatible land uses through the policies when voluntary
annexation is not possible.’ [3]
The 1999 plan was a marked deviation from earlier Comprehensive Plans; it was
much more policy-oriented rather than technical-oriented as earlier plans
were. [4] It focused on growth and development,
making population, commercial and industrial development assumptions that
would extrapolate into extraterritorial zoning and annexation of the adjacent
areas immediately outside the city. From this came an Extraterritorial Zoning
Study. The plan was composed of six steps: Background, Interest Group
Participation, Policy Development, Extraterritorial Zoning, Implementation
Procedures, and Model Plan. That study included forming a Steering Committee
and public meetings to get citizen input on the process of Implementation
Procedures and creating a Model Plan for other cities in the county and
state. Due to the strong opposition that was expressed by those in the
extraterritorial area, a two-year moratorium was imposed by the city on the
implementation of zoning in those areas.
Implementation did not occur and no Model Plan was completed. The
interim report completed in January 2001 summarizes the events.
The
whole issue of extraterritorial zoning for Keokuk or any city was claimed to
revolve around managing the city’s growth.
It was thought that by controlling land use in areas immediately
adjoining the corporate limits, that various disputes could be avoided that
might arise from incompatible uses of land between two adjacent property
owners. This would achieve ‘smart’ or
‘orderly’ growth, and to preserve targeted areas of future growth from
unwanted current growth at a time when voluntary annexation is not
financially or politically feasible. [5] Boiled down
to its core principle, extraterritorial zoning was a way to control land use
in the unincorporated areas without the expense of annexation and the
provision of services as compensation within the corporate limits. As these adjacent areas became ‘filled
in,’ voluntary annexation would be pursued.
The
zoning structure was to revolve around the use of non-traditional zoning
classifications that would be distinct from incorporated zoning classifications
to have zoning areas ‘specifically tailored to the issues which are
applicable for extraterritorial zoning.’ The need for regulation in
extraterritorial areas is much lower than in incorporated areas and revolved
around land use, therefore the need to establish mutually exclusive districts
of zoning classifications. The main goal was the preservation of future
development areas rather than regulating existing commercial and residential
activity within the extraterritorial area. The Extraterritorial Zoning Study
recognized that due to the fact that preservation of areas for future
development was the central concern, there were potential advantages to
targeting extraterritorial zoning only to those areas that were deemed
crucial to the city’s economic interest.[6] The policy
that commercial and industrial development would be kept within the city
limits, the entire two mile area was deemed by the city to be necessary to
include in the zoning initiative and given use classifications even though
there was negligible commercial economic interest. Eight Zoning Administration Alternatives were presented
involving various levels of County and citizen participation in the zoning
process.
The
rationale the city provides for using extra-territorial zoning is based on a
projection of land development needs up to the year 2020.[7] These assumed needs are based on a set of
four assumptions:
1. That the City has stemmed its population
loss.
2. The
City has a significant need to preserve the existing Main Street district
while expanding commercial development on North Main Street.
3. The City has a sound industrial manufacturing base.
4. The housing stock needs rehabilitation and preservation, while at
the same time new housing is needed.
From
these assumptions the Comprehensive Plan was structured to present what the
City called a ‘balanced’ view between both preservation and growth. [8]
From this came a series of short term to long- term priorities and priority
actions:
1. Improving
existing housing and building new housing;
2. Finishing the
existing Main Street reconstruction project and funding future Main Street
corridor expansion;
3. Promoting
development in existing incorporated areas such as along Johnson Street;
4. Maintaining
and expanding the existing manufacturing base by improving transportation and
utility access such as construction of rail access to Kindustry Park;
5. Find
additional land for expansion for development of a business or industrial
park;
6. Improving
municipal services through an expanded tax base as well as fixing existing
infrastructure such as sewers and streets;
7. Zoning in the extraterritorial area to
facilitate future growth.
The reality of the assumptions made above can best
be described by the following. The 2000 census confirmed that Keokuk
continued to lose population in the 1990s, with 11,427 residents in 2000
versus 12,451 in 1990. This loss of approximately 1,000 residents per decade
continues the trend that has existed since 1960. See table below.
Keokuk
Population 1960 - 2000
1960
- 16,316
1970
- 14,631
1980
- 13,536
1990
- 12,451
2000
- 11,427
The
manufacturing base has eroded in a more dramatic fashion, with recent losses
or layoffs at Ferro-Sil, Elkem/Midwest Carbide, Smurfit-Stone, and others.
The retail base across the state has not only lost businesses, but is making
less income adjusted for inflation than the base year 1976.[9]
In addition, median income in Lee County is less than it was in 1980 adjusted
for inflation, and though specific information could not be found, Keokuk
likely mirrors that number.
The
subcommittee feels that the focus for the city has shifted from this
‘balanced’ view to one that is more immediate and more concentrated on
preservation and expansion of corporate limits, like expansion of Kindustry
Park and development along the Highway 61 bypass corridor. The longer-term goal of zoning the
extraterritorial areas is unrealistic and an overreach by the city, and the
city needs to concentrate on development within the city limits until those
areas are fully developed and contributing to the tax base. If land is then
needed beyond that point, it should be acquired through either voluntary
annexation, or through the outright purchase of property from a willing
seller either alone or as a consortium with investors and developers. Until
the city can demonstrate good stewardship with the assets it has, it should
not worry about looking to control those areas outside its bounds.
Though
the City of Fort Madison has not formally proposed extraterritorial zoning,
the bypass being built around the City within the next few years may create a
pocket of land suitable for development from the northern city limits to the
highway, and to a smaller degree west of the city limits, it will likely be
an issue at some point. The situation
for Fort Madison is no different than that of Keokuk. It has also experienced
a steady loss of jobs and population since the ‘60s, (see table below) and at
this time has developable land within its city limits.
Fort
Madison Population
1960
-
1970
-
1980
- 13,520
1990
- 11,618
2000
- 10,715
If
the Keokuk initiative is a blueprint for all similar initiatives, what
extraterritorial zoning amounts to is a tool to give cities cheap and easy
access to undeveloped land in perpetuity at the expense of citizen landowners
in the zoned area. This can be easily
deduced from the Extraterritorial Zoning Study. The city makes it quite clear that this is the case, not only
in its Implementation Procedures. It
wants to limit and/or exclude economic activity by citizens and businesses in
these areas until the city feels that it is in its best interest to allow
it. This argument is further
supported in that proposed regulations in the newly zones areas were to be
limited strictly to land use alone as stated in Policy Statement 8. We find it arrogant and overbearing to
presume to limit activity of property owners in an area beyond the city’s
jurisdiction without any sort of financial interest in the property. Extraterritorial zoning takes away the
right paid for by the landowner for personal or economic use and gives that
right to the city with no compensation financially or in the form of services
offered. We seriously question a
methodology in which a municipality designates whatever area of land allowed within
the law as under its economic control and restricts all economic activity on
that land, though it has acquired no title or claim to it through some form
of compensation, for the purpose of its own economic gain at some point in
the future. This intent is made clear on page 2-14 of the Keokuk
Comprehensive Plan: ‘The goal of the extraterritorial zoning power would be
to preserve the areas identified in the long range land use plan for
development compatible with the city’s long term plan.’ In its exposed form,
this is bureaucratic embezzlement and stifles growth in the name of
potential.
Since
the area zoned is outside the city limits, if a city chooses one or more
areas to let commercial or residential development to occur, the city is not
required to provide municipal services to those areas as it would if the area
is annexed. The provision of any services would fall to the county, yet it
would have to meet those financial obligations without any control over what
those obligations might be. This would benefit the city at the county’s
expense, and ultimately the county residents would be picking up the
tab. This relationship would be
maintained in perpetuity until the area became incorporated by either annexation
or forming a new municipality. There is also the conflict that it would
create with existing county ordinances. Though the Extraterritorial Zoning
Study expressed the intent of the City not to operate in this manner, the
bottom line is that there are no real restrictions to stop them from doing
so. Legally, the State legislature has left the door wide open for abuse.
It
is claimed on page six of the Extraterritorial Zoning Study that one of the
reasons for zoning the extraterritorial areas of Keokuk is to provide
protection to property owners from inconsistent land uses due to development.
The subcommittee rejects this argument based on the same reasoning used
earlier in discussing county zoning. Zoning does not provide a steadfast
protection against those annoyances that some fear from their neighbors in
exchange for the loss of property rights. Practically any zoned city in the
United States is testament to that. Anyone with the money and political
influence can and most likely will get the variances they want to use the
property differently than what is it zoned. Zoning may offer less protection
as it is often cheaper to influence bureaucrats than to avoid harassment and
lawsuits from adjoining neighbors. It also provides a springboard for
involuntary annexation and lowers property values, particularly a property
that is prime commercial development ground and is zoned residential or
agricultural.
There
appears to be little benefit to be derived from extraterritorial zoning, and
no social, economic, or political sense to impose it on a citizenry that is
fundamentally opposed to it. The county should discourage it, not only for
the citizens’ sake, but also for the sake of the county’s financial
integrity. We also recommend that the County support initiatives at the State
level to give counties exclusive oversight of the extraterritorial process.
We
also feel that the best course of action, for citizens who are in an area a
municipality is proposing to extraterritorially zone is for them to band
together, organize, and educate one another to make themselves heard loud and
clear at both city and county meetings as well as local newspapers, radio,
television, the Internet, and through published printed material such as
pamphlets, flyers, posters, etc. We summarize
these concepts in an Action Plan should citizens find extraterritorial zoning
being suggested for their area:
1. Create as much publicity on the plan as possible, reveal all
pertinent aspects of the plan, and reveal the city’s intent for doing so.
2. Make the city provide public justification for zoning in its
meetings.
3. Have discussions with city, county, and state representatives
determining their positions and why.
4. Hold non-city sponsored citizen meetings with elected official
in attendance to answer direct questions from the citizens.
5. Use any forms of media and legal recourse possible to educate
those concerned. Make sure to study
the pertaining law and how it is applied.
Ultimately
we hope that extraterritorial zoning will be avoided by the cities. If not,
we hope that the citizens will stand up and be heard, and that ultimately
municipal growth will be handled most fair to those living in
extraterritorial areas.
|
