Open Letter

 

Open letter to the BOC – regarding private property rights vs. county politics

 

As you may know, my wife recently ran for public office.  Although, she did not win, we did learn a lot and got to meet the other candidates.  It was during the public forums sponsored by the Barrow County Republican party that I really met the candidates for the State offices on a personal basis.  While everyone was running around setting up our displays and freebies, the candidates were trying out their greeting and 30 second talking points on each other. 

 It was during these back stage rehearsals, that I met Shane Coley (Candidate for State Senate).  To tell you the truth, I had never met any one running for more then local office.   While talking with Mr. Coley, he asked me if I had ever read the books that were the basis of his campaign.  I consider Mr. Coley a tea party candidate.  I had never really taken these candidates as any thing more then the latest media spin along with the Ross Perot Party and Ralph Nader Green Party.  Sort of one-shot wonders based on nothing more then the candidate’s persona.  However, Mr. Coley’s platform was more then the standard tax less and smaller government mantra.  'He has based his positions in his run for office on years of research along with certain principles and old knowledge, much of which is introduced effectively in two books that he has shared by the hundreds. (“Whatever Happened to Penny Candy?” By Richard J. Maybury and “The Law” by Frederic Bastiat)'   

It was while reading “The Law” that I became all too aware of the source of all my frustration in dealing with the county regarding my horse training facility.   My frustration and those of the Tea Party are in part with government’s growing disregard of private property rights.

 

Without going into all the history around our request to continue our small business and the resulting lawsuit, I want to talk about what happens to private property rights when they become an inconvenience for those in public office regardless of party affiliation.

 

From “The Law” A Fatal Tendency of Mankind

 

“If everyone enjoyed the unrestricted use of his faculties and the free disposition of the fruits of his labor, social progress would be ceaseless… 

 

However, there is also another tendency that is common among people. When they can, they wish to live and prosper at the expense of others…  This fatal desire has its origin in the very nature of man – that impels him to satisfy his desires with the least possible pain.

 

…  Now since man is naturally inclined to avoid pain – and since labor is pain itself – it follows that men will resort to plunder whenever plunder is easier than work.

 

When, then, does plunder stop? It stops when it becomes more painful and more dangerous the labor.  

 

It is evident, then, that the proper purpose of law is to use the power of its collective force to stop this fatal tendency to plunder instead of to work.  All the measures of the law should protect property and punish plunder…

 

Since law cannot operate without the sanction and support of a dominating force, this force must be entrusted to those who make the laws.

 

This fact, combined with the fatal tendency that exists in the heart of man to satisfy his wants with the least possible effort explains the almost universal perversion of the law.  It is easy to understand how law, instead of checking injustice, becomes the invincible weapon of injustice.

 

The Results of Legal Plunder

 

It is impossible to introduce into society a greater change and a greater evil than this: the conversion of the law into an instrument of plunder…

 

…this tragic perversion of the law is that it gives an exaggerated importance to political passions and conflicts and to politics in general… The law takes property from one person and gives it to another”

 

Within Barrow County, government there is a long-standing unwritten standard regarding the building code and neighborhood conflicts… That standard is “Pre-Existing”. “Pre-Existing” is the standard by which Property Owners are protected from “New Neighbors” moving in… taking, harassing and otherwise disrupting the existing use of the property.

 

Given fair and even treatment of this standard, if you move in next to a neighbor with horses and with all its facilities and expected use…  You would not be allowed to have the county find that your neighbor’s “Pre-Existing” facilities / use is illegal and force their destruction because they offend the sensibilities of your “New Neighbors”…

 

Fair and even treatment… then enters Politics… and the perversion of “The Law”…

 

We have been in business since November of 2002… at our current location since, 2004... During that time, we have never attempted to hide our operation or facilities from any of our neighbors or the county government.

 

During 2008, we finished paying off the land loan on our place... We put the land up for an agriculture loan to finish clearing the land, add power to the barn and cross fence the property. 

 

During that year, the county contacted us to say that our neighbors were complaining that we were operating a boarding barn.   

 

We later found that the origin of these complaints was from the trailer property purchased in 2008 by our current neighbors.     

 

We went to the county to find out what was required to keep our small business in operation.  The planning department said the best way to resolve the issue was to request the property be rezoned to agricultural.

 

In the first half of the rezoning process, the county zoning department found that the property was not residential and recommend that it should be returned to agriculture.  The county zoning board unanimously approved the recommendation.  

 

The final step in the re-zoning process was to go before the County Board of Commissioners.  Given fair and even treatment of the “Pre-Existing” standard, the BOC would have found in our favor.  However, the Politics of the board were against us and the “Pre-Existing” standard was perverted…

 

We tried to mediate the issue with the BOC… Limit the size, visibility of our business… They did not respond… When we asked about the manufacturing business on the other side of our neighbor (incorporated in April 2007) 3 years after we moved in (2004) and 1 year before the “New Neighbors” (April 2008) … The County responded they are “Pre-Existing”…    

 

When is pre-existing truly “pre-existing”?

 

When it, Property/Use, pre-exists the conflict/Neighbor?

 

When the BOC finds it useful to meet their Personal Political agenda? 

Fair and even treatment… Politics… and the perversion of “The Law”…

 

The law is there to protect the property owner from plunder.    

 

What is going to keep them from taking your property when it offends the sensibilities of your “New Neighbors”?

 

When they use “The law” to take property from one person and give it to another…  When they took the Smith’s property, the fruits of their labor, for the unfunded Airport expansion. 

 

You said enough… 

 

What is the difference when they use “The Law“, not to out right take, but destroy a business because it gives them justification for their own personal political agenda?

  

Jacquelin and Philip Twiss

 

Across the Way Stables

www.acrossthewaystables.com

jtwiss@acrossthewaystables.com
ptwiss@us.ibm.com

770-402-2659