<< Back

12/11/02

Laws are useless without underlying infrastructure

By Mark Jamison
At the public hearing held prior to the passage of the Jackson County soil and sedimentation ordinance, I stood up and spoke against the ordinance. I didn’t oppose the ordinance out of some misguided allegiance to property rights issues or because it would have placed an onerous burden on property owners. I didn’t raise opposition because I thought that protecting our streams and waterways from sediment was a bad thing. On the contrary, the impetus behind the ordinance was a good one. We should keep sediment out of our streams and it is my duty and obligation as a landowner to control runoff and sediment from my land. I also did not oppose the ordinance because it was poorly written or flawed. The fact is the ordinance is a verbatim version of the state ordinance which has been found legal, enforceable and effective.

The reason I opposed the ordinance is because I believed the commissioners and the public had made the common mistake of believing that simply passing an ordinance would solve the problem of sedimentation control. It was clear that little or no thought had been given to the mechanisms of enforcement. The idea was to simply pass the ordinance, hire a control officer and go merrily on our way knowing that another problem was disposed of, another legislative achievement could be added to our political records.

The problem was and still is that enforcement of ordinances never exists in a political vacuum. Too often we make the mistake of believing that simply by passing a law we have solved the underlying problem. Too often our political leaders equate resolving an issue with simply passing legislation. I suspect it is their calculation that by engaging in the show of legislative action the issue and its attendant problems will fall beneath the public’s radar.

At its most fundamental level local government exists for the single purpose of delivering services to the populace. Those services may be to protect the health and welfare, increase economic opportunity or promote and insure the general public’s interests are served in the use and development of lands both public and private. Legislation, laws and ordinances serve to define policy. The real task and challenge is in the administration of policy and the ultimate delivery of the service. The real issue isn’t whether or not we passed an ordinance but whether we acted to solve the underlying problem.

If we understand this most fundamental mission and purpose of government we also then understand that issues do not exist within a vacuum. They are tied to each other and more importantly to the mechanisms of government that ultimately must deliver the service. If the individual departments and components of government do not function well then no ordinance, no matter how well written or intended, will ever serve its purpose.

In the case of the soil and sedimentation ordinance, it was clear from the beginning that the ordinance alone, enforced by a single control officer, was not going to begin to offer the intended coverage and protection.

Looking at a history of building inspections and the problems experienced with coverage, accuracy, follow-up and enforcement, it was obvious that there would be some problems with enforcement. Furthermore, the commissioners failed to consider any mechanisms or measures which would have made the levying of fines and penalties a clearly objective administrative process rather than an act of bravery by a junior employee or a test of political will and influence.

Lastly, by seeing an ordinance as the be all and end all of solutions we preclude other means of accomplishing our goals. Soil and sedimentation particularly lends itself to a strong effort of public education and awareness as well as the promotion and integration of clean contractor programs. The mechanisms should be in place to promote and develop solutions which go beyond simple legislate and enforce schemes.


The needs in Jackson

Jackson County’s planning and development structure needs repair. It cannot, as presently constituted, deliver the level of service needed to address the challenges that face the county. Our commissioners need to take responsibility for making the necessary changes. Rather than viewing the problems and challenges that confront the county purely as a set of political issues, our commissioners need to build a governmental infrastructure that can enhance and encourage public debate and dialogue on matters of substance. Certainly there are matters that will attract disagreement and debate and obviously politics will be a part of the process but we need the fundamental mechanisms in place that will assist us in identifying and bringing a range of solutions to the table for consideration. If we are to address the issues of land-use planning (and I would argue planning in general), then we need a competent planning infrastructure. We cannot continue to govern by moratoria and knee-jerk reaction.

The commissioners must understand that the various boards and panels which are set up to advise on issues from planning to social service to solid waste are part of the underlying governmental infrastructure and are critical in the delivery of local governmental services. There must be some fundamental logic and reason to appointments to these boards, and there must be some coordination of activity. There must be a system of oversight and accountability and there must be a clear definition of mission and expectations. The relationships between the commissioners, the boards and committees designed to advise and county staff ought to be laid out clearly.

This isn’t exciting stuff, but it is essential. It is the nuts and bolts of local government. It is the mechanism by which policy becomes reality. The best ordinance, the best land-use plan, will ultimately fail if the systems needed to administer, enforce, and deliver the intended services are not in place and functioning with at least some degree of effectiveness. More importantly, we won’t come close to devising the best ordinance or plan if the underlying process is so disjointed and flawed as to leave political expedience as our only alternative solution to everything.

Most importantly, the credibility of local government rests on its ability to devise a process and supporting structures that seem grounded in reason and rationale. Folks will not buy into policy decisions that seem based on whim or on political favoritism.

How can we ask folks to accept a Smart Growth process and all the implications that come with serious land-use planning when they cannot trust the underlying process? When they see a developer whose very presence as chairman of the planning board is a conflict of interest escape punishment for violating the very regulations he is charged with devising, how can people have faith in the system? How can we have faith when we see the commissioners fumble with moratoria and half-crafted solutions as they did with the helicopter ordinance and cell towers, particularly when the fumbling and failure resulted directly from the lack of competence and coordination of the underlying planning and advice systems?

Government, particularly at the local level, is not so much about legislative achievement or ribbon cutting ceremonies. It is about designing and administering effective systems for the delivery of services and application of policy. If our commissioners do not find the resolve to do the hard work needed to build a fundamental government infrastructure that can do these things, then ultimately all their policy initiatives will be doomed to fail.

(Jamison lives in Cullowhee and can be reached at mij918@earthlink.net)