The only thing necessary for the triumph of evil is for good men to do nothing.
― Attributed (perhaps erroneously) to British statesman and philosopher Edmund Burke, 1729-1797.
It’s a pretty simplistic view of the world, that evil is destined to triumph whenever ‘good men do nothing.’ But it’s not a bad philosophy to live by.
A hastily organized and poorly run Town Planning Commission meeting with one agenda item wrapped up around 5:30 yesterday evening, ending with a 4-to-1 vote to recommend — to Town Council — the removal of one of its ‘alternate’ members, Bill Hudson. (Me.) As one of two volunteer ‘alternate’ commissioners, I vote on Commission matters only when one or more ‘regular members’ are absent. Which is to say, I have extremely limited power on the Commission.
Mostly, I have been able to ask questions. That’s something I’m willing to do. Ask questions. Mostly, my questions have been regularly dismissed, by Planning Commission chair Peter Adams and by Town Planning Director James Dickhoff, and by a couple of other members of the Commission.
Last night’s motion, put forward by ‘regular’ Commissioner Jeff Posey, was to recommend my removal “without cause.” I take that to mean, “for no particular reason”. Presumably, the recommendation will be provided to the Town Council at some point in the near future, because only Town Council has the power to appoint or remove a Planning Commissioner.
Five members of the public spoke at the meeting, none of whom expressed support for the proposed action. Long-time School Board member Bruce Dryburgh, for example, expressed his concern that the complete absence of publicly available information, and the minimal public notice — the meeting was announced barely 24 hours in advance — reflected a lack of transparency on the part of the Town government.
I think they generally refer to this type of action as “railroading”.
It’s absolutely true, I consistently embrace argument and discussion as valuable tools on the path to better, more equitable decisions. Not everyone values intellectual combat. Many people, even some serving on elected and appointed boards, believe that argument and disagreement are sure signs that something is going very wrong, and that people should be nice and get along and not rock the boat. Some are more comfortable rubber stamping a staff proposal than actually giving the issue thorough consideration and discussion.
Sorry, not my style.
And I can easily understand why certain people within the Town government would encourage the Planning Commission to vote 4-to-1 to recommend my removal from the Commission. For one thing, I’ve been an active part of a citizen effort to provide the town taxpayers with some measure of control over the (in some communities, problematic) Urban Renewal Authority, which was formed last November based partly on a report by Planning Director James Dickhoff that “dangerous urban blight” existed on the perpetually vacant, 27-acre travertine meadow adjacent to the Springs Resort. Our proposed Home Rule Charter amendment, if passed by the town voters, will require these corporate welfare ‘urban renewal’ projects to be approved by the voters before moving forward.
The first such project was proposed to the Town last summer, before the Town even had an ‘Urban Renewal Authority’ — and we’ve heard nothing about it since. But a few people, including some at Town Hall, have expressed distaste for the idea that the voters would be allowed to weigh in on possible $79 million tax subsidies.
Our Town government professes to be governed by written rules and regulations, an approach I thoroughly endorse, and an approach which is thoroughly evident in the Municipal Code and the Land Use and Development Code (LUDC). As far as I can tell, all of the authority granted to the Planning Commission comes from the Town Council by way of the Land Use and Development Code and other Council-approved policies and rules.
There are several reasons why these policies and rules are written down. One of the main reasons is to allow everyone involved in a government process to know exactly what is expected, and what might occur if the policies and rules are not followed. Another reason why policies and rules are written down is to prevent arbitrary and capricious decisions by a governing body.
When I contacted my fellow volunteer commissioners recently about LUDC section 1.4.2, I received responses from two of them.
From Commissioner Mark Weiler:
Thank you for your email.
It is my opinion that the LUDC is a guide for developers to use, but not hard and fast law.
We as planning commissioners can review alternatives and agree to changes we feel would enhance the future of our community.
I am not averse to private roads within town, nor am I averse to gated communities in Pagosa Springs future.
Frankly, I would love to live in either development.
And from Commission chair Peter Adams:
Bill, I did not get your previous emails regarding [River Rock Estates] until the morning after the meeting. There is no doubt that we need to review the LUDC and make changes. In the meantime I firmly believe that we as a Commission should have the authority to “waive” certain aspects of the LUDC when appropriate to specific applications and formalize that into the LUDC as soon as possible.
If we proceed according to the “letter of the law” of the LUDC we simply will be overburdened by it. We need this flexibility and the ability to interpret the LUDC.
These interpretations, that the LUDC regulations are merely a “guide” that can be “waived” whenever Planning Commissioners are so inclined, seem to fly in the face of Section 1.4.2 which (as mentioned in Part One) reads in part:
No building or structure shall be erected, converted, enlarged, reconstructed, or altered for use, nor shall any land, building, or structure be used or changed, except in accordance with all of the applicable regulations established by this Land Use Code.
…A permit or approval issued in violation of this Land Use Code is void.
Unfortunately, in the case of Jack Searle’s proposed River Rock Estates subdivision — recently recommended by the Planning Commission, and then remanded back to them for another look, by the Town Council — even our Town Planning Director took the stance that Section 1.4.2, Section 6.6.3, Section 7.4.1, Section 7.2.1, Section 7.3.3, Section 7.3.4, and Section 7.3.5 of the LUDC did not apply, or were unclear and could be ignored.
As far as I can tell, every subdivision built within the Town limits over the past couple of decades has successfully aligned itself with those just-mentioned LUDC sections.
Except for one. The Cobblestone townhomes, built a few years ago by developer Jack Searle’s company, BWD, appears to have been built in violation of those same sections. How this happened? I cannot say. I was not on the Town Planning Commission at that time. But Mr. Searle is clearly eager to see it happen again. (See his comments in Part One.)
I was the sole Commissioner to vote “No” on the River Rock Estates recommendation. I was the sole Planning Commissioner to testify at the subsequent Town Council hearing, when the Council remanded the issue back to Planning Commission for a second look.
No one likes their decisions questioned. So shoot the messenger.