Citizen Input
Jan 9, 2005 News
One of the issues that I differed with my opponent on in the last campaign was the importance of citizen input. Following is a guest column from Carol Overland, who as my campaign manager helped considerably with all the ins and outs of my campaign. In her work she is a powerful public advocate for citizens who find it difficult to have their voices heard by public officials. In the guest column she describes the growing trend on the part of these officials who seem less and less interested in listening and too eager to disregard concerns of citizens affected by proposed growth. Public input is a fundamental part of democracy.
Wednesday, January 05, 2005
Shine the light on decision making
As one who cares deeply about public process, the political climate and behavior of public officials in this area has me baffled and outraged.Take the recent Rice County Planning Commission “Hearings” and other local land-use com-men-tary. Why would an appointed public official berate a politically involved citizen for asking questions? The official complained, “he expects answers, and if we answer, he’ll just ask more questions,” and oddly enough he was supported, not fired.
Another claims support of a silent and absent “majority.” Questioning is a problem? Is open decision making by a public body a problem? Is accountability a problem?
Why would a public servant claim citizens abuse Environmental Assessment Worksheets when the law controls how they are used? Why would an elected official say, “There are many folks in Northfield and other cities that don’t put any financial assets at risk but want to have extensive input into projects” and that developers should have free reign, as if public input is a problem. These projects affect citizens’ homes, livelihood, and quality of life. Do only those who pony up deserve to be heard, developers, not citizens? Public boards, committees and officials are there to protect the public interest, not only grease the wheels of commerce — sometimes they’re at odds.
What does citizen participation accomplish that officials find onerous? Let’s be realistic. An EAW won’t stop a project, yet restriction of their use has been justified by the myth that their use is “abused” and that it’s using an environmental tool for zoning regulation. The environment (land) and zoning (land use) are inextricably linked. Environmental review is one of the few tools available to require that the environmental impact of a project be disclosed and considered by developers. A discretionary EAW rarely, if ever, results in an EIS, and even an EIS rarely stops a project. When it does, it’s newsworthy and an isolated event. So what’s really the issue?
What are these officials thinking? Where’s their respect for the citizens they represent? Do they care for the land they are entrusted to protect? Where is their respect for democracy? Will they sneer as they read this? Why do some regard talk of rights, speaking out, or accountability, as “quaint” or “pie-in-the-sky” dreaming? Public officials must protect the public interest, but with derisive talk and disrespect of citizens, whose interests are they representing?
We do live in a democracy, tortured as it is these days. Public servants have responsibilities, but we the people are “the boss.” With citizenship also comes responsibility, not just privileges. We are compelled to stand up for the public interest because we see policy perverted by the overwhelming demands and power of special interests. It is the job of each and every one of us to participate. Some think that to speak up is being too controversial and are cowed to silence or use their fear to excuse their own responsibility, but that attitude is disrespectful of those taking on the burden of action. This is not a fascist state yet but silence brings us closer.
For a citizen to have input, it takes courage, and a broad range of skills and experience that comes at a high price Yet one citizen can make a difference, and five together can accomplish policy miracles. Citizens have to advocate and lobby, write, sue, run up a phone bill and drive hundreds of miles to do this work. But that’s what makes democracy strong — showing up. Once your eyes are opened, action is not optional, it is a mandate that is taken very seriously. It requires eternal vigilance and work on the part of each and every one of us.
Citizen strength makes public servants nervous. Maybe they make derisive jabs at citizens because they don’t recognize that it is extremely difficult for a citizen to participate. Maybe they have so much invested in the outcome that they’re afraid they’ll be exposed. But they are there to act in the public interest, not protect their own. Maybe they hope their nasty comments will make more stay home. Maybe they don’t value the commitment it takes to stick with issues year after year after year.
Maybe they hope to increase public apathy through their negativity, and discourage or shame citizens into silence because they don’t like being held accountable. Maybe they’re using abusive tactics to cast a blanket of fear over everything political. Maybe open government is a problem for them.
But the reason for the bad behavior of public officials doesn’t matter all that much. What matters is that we citizens keep at it. Turn up the heat, stir slowly, hold them accountable and make sure what they’re doing is very, very public — that’s the best recipe for good process and policy.
– Carol A. Overland is a representative of 63 petitioners for EAW for I-35 land use conversion under Minn. R. 4410.4300, supb.36 and an attorney at law in Northfield.
Here’s a response:
Rezoning is the right thing to do
Rice County Zoning background information:
Company eyeing I-35 and County Road 1
Dundas Mayor upset with County Board
Dundas Council places moratorium on annexation
County holds two hearings on rezoning
Rezoning will wait until December 2005
Rezoning will take separate hearings
New county board members voice opinions on zoning
Board approves item not on agenda
And from Rep. Ray Cox,
Land use control….local or state?
I’ve had a few contacts from constituents that are concerned about possible land use changes in rural Rice County. The Rice County Board of Commissioners voted to begin the process of changing some land along Interstate Highway 35 between Rice County #1 and State Highway #19 from agricultural to some type of industrial/commercial use.
About the only thing I can help my constituents with on this issue is to verify that the Board actions are legal. I know Rice County Attorney Jeff Beaumaster was at the meeting where this issue came up and was voted on. I believe Jeff said Board Chairman Don Olson had the authority to rule about if it should be on the agenda for action. Don felt it was proper and the issue passed 4-1.
There really isn’t any state issue in this action, other than making sure the Board follows prescribed government procedural issues. Land use and zoning actions such as this belong under the control of County Boards. I would not want to see State regulation or restriction on land use issues such as this. Not all my constituents agree on this issue….some folks feel the State might be able to provide better land use control on a larger scale.
It is important to note that at the same time this issue is being dealt with on a local level, some people are urging Governor Pawlenty to initiate more State control over land use issues as they relate to farming operations, most notably animal feeding operations. Some people involved in farming operations would like to see a uniform standard across the State for animal feeding operation locations. Such an action could take away local control rights from some Counties or Townships. I continue to believe that it makes sense to have local control over this type of land use, within State guidelines, even if it means there are differences from County to County in where feeding operations can locate.
Local land use control, within overall State guidelines, seems to work well in Minnesota. By keeping land use issues with local people we create the type of development and uses that the people want. If the Boards and Supervisors are doing something the people don’t support, I suspect the people will show up at the ballot box and make a change.
