Did you know that being perceived as disrespectful is an actual reason to deprive someone of their Constitutional rights?
Me neither!
But that is the latest reason that the Gwinnett County Commissioners have given for dropping the ball on the zoning clarification that is necessary to put Gwinnett County in alignment with the Constitution of the United States of America.
This email was sent from the Gwinnett County Commissioners office to the most recent citizen battling for the right to provide her family with safe food:
"There was some movement toward changing the ordinance until tone of people wanting hobby chickens became disrespectful.Because of her "tone" this citizen was rejected the help she is due from the very public servant who swore to do that job! Apparently the commissioners only respond to life threatening matters like whether or not the pool at a new building site that none of the community wants will have a cabana. I had a very amicable meeting with Chairman Nash back in October, and have tried to correspond with both her and Jace Brooks. For the sake of full disclosure, here are my emails to them, in their entirety, none of which received a response.
Michelle works very hard every day too get answers for everyone in my district. They range from minor to very serious issues.
I do not think you would say this is a life threatening matter. The ordenance was in place before you got chickens.
Becuase of your tone I will consider you no longer need our help.
Lynette"
"Hi Charlotte,
Here is a document, titled "Cato Handbook for Policymakers", that does a better job than I could of outlining the ways that the Constitution truly affects property rights. It also has a great deal to say regarding the concerns you voiced about hashing out the regulations from your standpoint. I've highlighted a couple of quotes below, but I do hope that you will take the time to read this document. You strike me as sincere.
"The first problem, as noted earlier, is the modern permitting regime. We would not stand for speech or religion or most other rights to be enjoyed only by permit. Yet that is what we do today with property rights, which places enormous, often arbitrary, power in the hands of federal, state, and local ‘‘planners.’’ Driven by political goals and considerations— notwithstanding their pretense to ‘‘smart growth’’—planning commissions open the application forum not only to those whose rights might be at stake but to those with interests in the matter. Thus is the common-law distinction between rights and interests blurred and eventually lost. Thus is the matter transformed from one of protecting rights to one of deciding whose ‘‘interests’’ should prevail. Thus are property rights effectively politicized. And that is the end of the matter for most owners because that is as far as they can afford to take it."
"In this last connection, however, the first thing Congress should do is recognize candidly that the problem of regulatory takings begins with regulation. Doubtless the Founders did not think to specify that regulatory takings are takings too, and thus are subject to the Just Compensation Clause, because they did not imagine the modern regulatory state: they did not envision our obsession with regulating every conceivable human activity and our insistence that such activity—residential, business, what have you—take place only after a grant of official permission. In some areas of business today, we have almost reached the point at which it can truly be said that everything that is not permitted is prohibited. That is the opposite, of course, of our founding principle: everything that is not prohibited is permitted—where ‘‘permitted’’ means ‘‘freely allowed,’’ not allowed ‘‘by permit.’’
"Homeowners; developers; farmers and ranchers; mining and timber companies; and businesses large and small, profit making and not for profit, all have horror stories about regulatory hurdles they confront when they want to do something, particularly with real property. Many of those regulations are legitimate, of course, especially if they are aimed, preemptively, at securing genuine rights. But many more are aimed at providing some citizens with benefits at the expense of other citizens. They take rights from some to benefit others. ""Under common law, properly applied, people cannot use their property in ways that damage their neighbors’ property—defined, again, as taking things those neighbors hold free and clear. Properly conceived and applied, then, property rights are self-limiting: they constitute a judicially crafted and enforced regulatory scheme in which rights of active use end when they encroach on the property rights of others. ""If we take the text seriously, as we should, the clause speaks simply of ‘‘private property.’’ As the quote earlier from Madison suggests, ‘‘property’’ denotes not just some ‘‘underlying estate’’ but all the estates—all the uses—that can rightly be made of a holding. In fact, in every area of property law except regulatory takings we recognize that property is a ‘‘bundle of sticks,’’ any one of which can be bought, sold, rented, bequeathed, what have you. Yet takings law has clung to the idea that only if the entire bundle is taken does government have to pay compensation.
That view enables government to extinguish nearly all uses through regulation—and hence to regulate nearly all value out of property— yet escape the compensation requirement because the all-but-empty title remains with the owner."
"The principled approach requires, of course, that the Court have a basic understanding of the theory of the matter and a basic grasp of how to resolve conflicting claims about use in a way that respects the equal rights of all. That is hardly a daunting task, as the old common-law judges demonstrated. In general, the presumption is on the side of active use, as noted earlier, until some plaintiff demonstrates that such use takes the quiet enjoyment that is his by right—and the defendant’s right as well. At that point the burden shifts to the defendant to justify his use: absent some defense like the prior consent of the plaintiff, the defendant may have to cease his use—or, if his activity is worth it, offer to buy an easement or buy out the plaintiff. Thus, a principled approach respects equal rights of quiet enjoyment—and hence environmental integrity. But it also enables active uses to go forward—though not at the expense of private or public rights. Users can be as active as they wish, provided they handle the ‘‘externalities’’ they create in a way that respects the rights of others. "
Have a great week!Melissa Burgess"
When I did not receive a response within a week or so, I emailed again:
"Hey Charlotte,
I know you stay pretty busy, but I'd love it if you got a chance to read the document I sent over last month. It would be very helpful to you in fleshing out the concern you have over property rights. It also clears up some confusion pertaining to what is sometimes erroneously referred to as a neighbor's "right" over someone else's property. The correct word to use would be "interest". I found that point particularly helpful, and I hope you do to.
Have a great week!
Melissa Burgess"
Here is what I sent Mr. Brooks over two months ago. I'm still patiently waiting for a response:
"Hey Jace,
I enjoyed the public forum meeting last month. I think you'll find my spin on what happened with the community group interesting. I posted it here:
"Based on what I saw at the Public Forum, a community group is not going to help me.
Mr. Jenkins, of Rocklyn Homes, did not have a community group and he was granted the zoning changes he requested for the property that he owns, despite opposition from District 1, and even after admitting that this wasn’t going to work out entirely well for the whole community.
If the Gwinnett County Commission will be consistent in their respect of property rights and granting zoning changes based on the wishes of the property owner, has yet to be seen."
I'm still hoping this can be a simple zoning clarification that will be processed soon. I've been trying to find out how to get on the agenda and can't seem to get an answer from anyone. I'll be meeting with Chairman Nash tomorrow afternoon.
Sincerely,
Melissa Burgess"******************************************************************************
I could beat a dead horse and go on and on sharing my emails, but I think these are sufficient examples. There hasn't been any rudeness from one single citizen of Gwinnett County, and even so, that is not a good reason to deny us our personal liberty to quiet enjoyment of our own properties. If there were any rudeness, I'd say that completely ignoring citizens that pay their taxes, and in turn your paycheck, is quite rude, wouldn't you?The fifth amendment to the Constitution states that no private property shall be taken for public use without just compensation.
When the county of Gwinnett tells me that I can't have chickens on MY property because the "public" doesn't want me to, they are effectively taking my property from me and stating that it belongs to them to use as they see fit. And they don't see fit to allow chickens. Actually, they owe me money for prohibiting me from using my property. This is not a stretch. The Cato Institute has done an excellent job hashing this out in this document.
So, what can you do? Write to the County Commissioners. Call and request a meeting. Go to the public forum meetings and keep insisting on your right. If you need help getting started on any of that, I've type it all out for you here. Please don't hesitate to comment and ask if you need help! I'm happy to proofread your emails and offer pointers.
Merry Christmas!
