What Is This Really All About?
The intent of the referendum effort is not to tell anyone what to think, but what to consider as one decides what policies represent their own best interests when balancing their own personal property rights against the allowances necessary to foster a thriving community.
The underlying issue is very simple. Should the citizens of Park county have material input in the policies impacting their rights as citizens of the County? In particular what role should citizens play in the formulation and implementation of the land use policies affecting them? Under the current construct the County has the authority to implement Type II or County initiated zoning which gives the County Commission the authority to adopt land use policies by a simple majority of the three person commission. Policy formulation does have to follow a "public process", but the ultimate decision to adopt the plan recommended by the "public process" rests with the County Commission. As a citizen you are able to provide input during public comment sessions talk, but the Commission is under no obligation to gather input from a representative sample of the impacted constituency. The public process is informal with few guardrails to ensure the output is consistent with the perspective held by a statistically significant cross section of the impacted constituency.
There is no evidence in the public record to indicate the process that resulted in the adoptions of the existing Growth Policy process was initiated with any kind of needs analysis before diving into the solution. This is a fatal flaw when undertaking any project. If you don't know your where you are and where you want to be, it's impossible to lay out an optimized path to get there. A Growth Policy should serve as a means to an end not an end unto itself. Is the current Growth Policy working? Who knows since there was never any objective criteria established to assess success relative to the intended objectives. It is difficult if not impossible to find any effectively implemented land use policy, across the County, that can be traced back to a specific goal or objective in the Growth Policy. The two most tangible impacts stemming from the Growth policy is that it allows for Type II zoning and it enables the County to apply for grants requiring a jurisdiction have some sort of strategic land use management policy in place for consideration. The current Growth Policy amounts to little more than a centralized collection of some nicely crafted thoughts on things to consider when generating land use policies. In practice the current Growth Policy amounts to little more than a non regulatory trope allowing the County to check a bureaucratic box enabling the County to impose land use policies within its jurisdiction.
To get to the right place we have to ignore the sunk costs, learn from our mistakes and start over with the ends in mind. Referendums 1 and 2 are the first critical steps in starting us down the path to where we want to go. Issues like grant eligibility and city annexation of County land are raised as a subversive tactic to distract focus and shift energy away from efforts targeted at achieving strategic objectives. With its 60+ year track record of not being able to muster the political or administrative will to decide where to place a railroad crossing, we can assume a similar level of effectiveness should any notion to annex County land ever be raised. Bottom line if the power rests with the eligible voters, the people will have a direct impact on the decisions that impact them.
The existing public process is intended as a mechanism that only collects comment from citizens. It has not been implemented in a way that facilitates a dialogue withing the impacted jurisdiction. Sadly it provides non-profits and other special interest groups the ability to exercise a level of influence that exceeds their representation among eligible voters in the County. While reasonable people can agree communities benefit from a proactive approach to dealing with land use policy, it is key to recognize outcomes are optimized through integrated community engagement culminating with participation in final policy decisions via popular vote. Make no mistake, special interest groups promote policy positions and agendas consistent with their own objectives. The tactics they support come directly from the central planning playbook rather than a dispersed planning mechanism which draws upon the wisdom accumulated across broader community. The central planning model is manifest in the current Growth policy where a small subset of self appointed stewards who believed they were best suited to generate a" plan" they could then recommend to an even smaller subset of individuals to make the final decision for everyone who lives and works in the County.
As is all too often demonstrated through their actions, special interest groups push intellectually dishonest narratives intended to inject fear into the equation rather than engage in reasoned discussion informed by the thoughtful analysis of objective data. In short, their public facing efforts are intended to scare people into what to think rather than foster a discussion based on the merits of the competing perspectives. They seek to impose their will rather than seek the consent of the impacted jurisdiction of citizens. The best way to protect personal property rights is to allow those who own the property to express their opinion by having a vote on the decision to adopt rules that govern the use of personal property.