The Boulder County Commissioners are taking hard line stances on two issues. One I agree with and one I oppose. They want to tell certain county residents what they can build based on a philosophy of what's "right" yet they do not want to be told by a higher authority that they must also allow other certain people to build something based on what's "right".
On the one hand, they are poised to challenge to the state Supreme Court level (at least) the provisions of the federal Religious Land Use and Institutionalized Persons Act as providing inappropriate special status to one group over all others and allowing that group to ignore land-use laws the county has re: development. This all comes from the Rocky Mountain Christian Church's proposal to add 132,000 sq ft of additional space on land zoned as agricultural in Niwot. The Commissioners have written to various officials asking for help in repealing aspects of the federal law.
I've been told by Commissioner Will Toor that no other property owner would even consider making such a proposal, knowing the county's priorities and regulations. I agree with their principled stance that no group based solely on religious affiliation should be allowed to grow outside of the bounds set by the county. More detail in the Longmont Times Call.
This doesn't mean I completely support those bounds, however. But that is a different argument. Given that those standards are set, everyone must play by those rules. Churches deserve no special exemptions.
The RLUIP Act "prohibits zoning and landmarking laws that substantially burden the religious exercise of churches" under the blanket of First Amendment protection. With this constitutional rationalization, church supporters passionately decry the unfair and subjective oppression they are facing from the Commissioners. The Commissioners do not buy the argument that supporting/enabling church growth is the "right thing to do".
On the other hand, the Commissioners are considering an indefinite building moratorium authority for themselves based on the possibility that someone could propose a construction project that is environmentally inefficient or otherwise not as sustainable as they would like to see. Construction materials and techniques that are not energy efficient are not the "right thing to do," and hence the Commissioners are working on ways to indirectly and directly require such construction in unincorporated Boulder County. I do not agree with their approach and have written about it earlier.
On Thursday, the Commissioners announced the March 6 hearing on the topic has been tabled. Perhaps they realized that subjective opinions on a development proposal before creating standards vetted in the public arena are not defensible.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
1 comment:
Dan, thanks for bringing this stuff to our attention again and again. It's refreshing to have an issue to debate that I have no strong personal opinion about, and that couldn't be more the case with this County stuff.
So when I say that the repeated attacks on the County Commission seem unfounded, I hope it is clear that I say this because you have yet to provide us with any idea why you insist on characterizing every possible thing the County does as overstepping its bounds. As I've mentioned off-line, my theory is that the County is at this point so notorious for its history of pushing the limits that rational and otherwise well-informed people can no longer distinguish between negligence and overreaching and the normal everyday business of a local government.
The RMCC case is interesting, because you agree with the County Commission here but also state that it is taking a "hard line" on development. I linked to the briefs in the case last time you brought this up, and I've also watched the case evolve over the years in media coverage. It seems to me that RMCC at some point determined that it was headed to court, and at some contemporaneous point abandoned any notion that they should make their plans comport with the County's land use regulations. After all, if you're going to be the test case challenging County authority under RLUIPA, wouldn't you want to be clearly outside the bounds of what would be normally acceptable under zoning? Wouldn't you want to make it clear that RLUIPA is why you should be approved, not the merits alone under zoning?
And I've said before that the accusation that moratorium authority has anything to do with the County's energy efficiency initiative is pure and simple speculation. I have seen no link between the two, though I welcome some more background if you have it.
Indefinite moratoria on general categories of building or zoning approvals would be illegal, so that accusation is bunk. Honestly, last time you reported on this issue, there was mention of a current code provision for six month moratoria, but it's still absolutely hazy to me where you got that information or any of this conspiracy theory linking moratorium authority to energy efficiency. If you have this kind of background, it would be very helpful to the reader.
What has been tabled on March 6? What do you mean when you accuse the County of having "subjective opinions on a development proposal before creating standards vetted in the public arena"? Did the County Commission offer the quote that energy inefficient construction techniques are not the "right thing to do," or is that part of the license you are taking with this issue?
I think it is valid for the public to ask for explanations when an issue is complex, or anytime for that matter. However, at the moment, I'm not a fan of adding so much initial spin to those questions that it never occurs to the public to ask for the facts. More facts, less spin, please.
Post a Comment