Sitting in a park in Paris France
Reading the news and it sure looks bad
They won’t give peace a chance
That was just a dream some of us had…
— from ‘California’ by Joni Mitchell, 1971
Chances for peace seem distant, as wars continue around the globe. Gaza. Ukraine. Sudan. Myranmar. Yemen. Ethiopia. Nigeria. Columbia. Burkina Faso… And now the U.S. has entered a war between Israel and Iran.
But peace… it’s still a dream some of us have.
Is it human nature to fight with our neighbors? And what are we fighting about, exactly? Ideas? Territory? Security? Economic control? Our children’s inheritance?
I came across a fairly small book last month, written in 1990 by Daniel Kemmis, former Speaker of the Montana House of Representatives, former mayor of the City of Missoula.
Community and the Politics of Place
Those are two issues that have become important to me, in my role as a citizen activist in Pagosa Springs.
1. Community.
2. The Politics of Place.
But maybe those are actually the very same issue.
Turns out, a small book can still contain big ideas. Early on in the book, Mr. Kemmis quoted from the Preamble to the Montana State Constitution.
We the people of Montana, grateful to God for the quiet beauty of our state, the grandeur of our mountains, the vastness of our rolling plains, and desiring to improve the quality of life, equality of opportunity and to secure the blessings of liberty for this and future generations do ordain and establish this constitution.
Mr. Kemmis goes on to explain how — despite any appreciation for the beauty and grandeur and vastness — the people of Montana have largely lost the ability to work together for the ‘common good’. But this was a capacity the people once held, in his opinion.
In Part Two of this editorial series, we heard — at the June 17 work session of the Archuleta Board of County Commissioners — Commissioner Veronica Medina addressing the burdens that governments place on private property owners when (possibly excessive?) land use regulations are imposed. She proposed that the County government should protect, as best it can, the health and safety of residents, but argued that other aesthetic and usage conflicts ought to be worked out by negotiations between the neighbors.
I’ve spent a bit of time reading the Archuleta County Land Use Regulations while researching stories for the Daily Post. I would estimate that only about 50% of the rules in that 334-page document are directly related to health and safety.
An example of County regulations that are purely aesthetic and have nothing to do with health or safety:
5.4.1.4 Building Materials and Color
(1) Predominant exterior building material on all sides shall be high quality material,
including the following and other materials with similar appearances and
characteristics: brick, sandstone, other native stone, wood and logs.
(2) Color shades shall be used to facilitate unifying the development. Façade colors
should be low reflectance, subtle, neutral, or earth tone colors.
(3) Exterior building material shall not include smooth-faced concrete block, aluminum
or vinyl siding, or prefabricated steel panels.
The discussion on June 17 concerned business vehicles being stored on a 12-acre parcel, in apparent violation of zoning rules within the Rural Residential zoning.
How do we define “Liberty” in Archuleta County, when land uses are subject to regulation? How do we define “Justice”?
A neighbor, local realtor Mike Knapp, had lodged a protest with the Planning Department, and he challenged Commissioner Medina’s interpretation that “health and safety” — and not aesthetics — are appropriate areas of County responsibility.
Mr. Knapp responded to the commissioner, while referring to the Land Use Regulations:
“I agree with everything you said. But I’m talking about ‘use’ and ‘zoning’ So, Rural Residential zoning. ‘Vehicle Major Repair, Servicing and Maintenance’, not allowed. What is built on that property is a shop, to repair and store and maintain vehicles. ‘Outdoor Storage, Commercial’, not allowed…
“They’re backing equipment off high-boy trailers after 9pm, any day of the week. Or training their drivers how to back up a trailer, for the entire weekend,.. ‘Beep, beep, beep’… These are things that…
“I’m an American. And I want freedoms. My freedoms are great, as long as I’m not infringing on someone else. I would like to know how that’s not infringing on everyone who lives around you?”
I suppose the beeping noise of a truck, backing, could be considered an infringement on my civil rights, when I have a 334-page book of regulations to reference.
Americans have various ideas about the meaning of the word “freedom”. Sometimes called “liberty” or “justice”.
Generally speaking, we inherit our ideas from our parents and grandparents.
In May 1787, when the Founding Fathers gathered at the Pennsylvania State House — now known as Independence Hall — for a ‘Constitutional Convention’, they had a few ideas foremost on their minds.
Liberty and justice, for sure, were two of those important ideas. But so were greed, dishonesty, violence, civil unrest, and tyranny. What would be the best way to ensure the health, safety and welfare of the citizenry — the ‘common good’ — while also preventing the rise of a dictatorial, repressive Federal government or a citizenry in constant disagreement and turmoil?
According to Mr. Kemmis, the constitutional debate in 1787 came down to, essentially, two philosophical approaches to democratic self-governance, and, on the other side of the equation, control of the population by the Federal government.
The same methods of controlling the population were eventually handed down to the states, and to local governments.
The Constitutional Convention — which included only white male businessmen and plantation owners — featured two factions.
The Federalists, who soon after the Convention formed themselves into the first U.S. political party, favored a strong national government that controlled monetary policies.
The overall philosophy of control could be described by the adage: “Divide and Conquer.”
If the Federal government could keep a wide variety of interest groups fighting amongst themselves, the Federal government could survive and operate without worrying too much about citizens actually gaining democratic powers.
The Anti-Federalists, who later coalesced as the Democratic-Republican Party, had very different ideas about government, as we can find, for example, in the writings of Thomas Jefferson:
And say, finally, whether peace is best preserved by giving energy to the government — or information to the people. This last is the most certain and the most legitimate engine of government. Educate and inform the whole mass of the people. Enable them to see that it is their interest to preserve peace and order, and they will preserve them.
And it requires no very high degree of education to convince them of this. They are the only sure reliance for the preservation of our liberty.
— Thomas Jefferson to James Madison, 1787.
Two approaches. Divide and conquer? Or an informed citizenry?