E-mail to Supervisor Bill Dodd:
Dear Bill:
From our last conversation I gathered that the environmental extremists pushing this ordinance are trying to brand NVLSA as a radical property rights group.
I would like to point out that NVLSA has consistently been a voice of caution, moderation, and reason. As each argument in support of this ordinance has been advanced, NVLSA has been there to reasonably and rationally examine it, question it, and if appropriate, logically refute it. Questioning the wisdom of more land use regulation in a county that already has the most stringent regulations in the state is not a radical act. Demanding thorough scientific justification for the sacrifices we are being asked to make is not a radical act. Demanding a clear explanation of the impact of this ordinance, including a depiction of which properties will be affected and how, is not a radical act. Objecting to unfair confiscation of our property is not a radical act. Participating in our democratic process by speaking up at these meetings is not a radical act. NVLSA has done nothing radical, is not a radical organization, and it is unfair and deceptive to characterize it as radical in an attempt to discount its legitimate objections to this ordinance.
What is radical is imposing severe restrictions on thousands of people without clearly demonstrating that those restrictions are necessary. What is radical is imposing these restrictions without clearly explaining their impact, and without clarifying exactly which properties are affected and to what extent. What is radical is separating good people from their own property in an effort to achieve environmental gain when there is no assurance that any such gain is actually attainable. What is radical is demanding that everyone else's rights be sacrificed for the sake of an agricultural coalition's secret political strategy. What is radical is the creation by fiat of conservation easements over private property without permission from the owners and without just compensation. What is radical is ignoring the tremendous public outpouring against this ordinance and proceeding as if it had not occurred.
Responding with reasonable inquiry, intelligent analysis, and rational arguments to these radical attacks on our homes and our dreams and our rights and our freedoms is not a radical response, and only radicals themselves would characterize it as such. I hope you will not to be deceived by their extremist rhetoric.
NVLSA believes that only by shedding the light of logic and reason on this matter can we hope to arrive at the decision that is best for all of us. To avoid the risk that extremist rhetoric or emotional response will dictate the outcome of this debate, I ask you to please submit to us in writing all the arguments in favor of this ordinance so that we may examine them and return to you our well reasoned and logical written response, including our rebuttal of those arguments we believe are false or misleading. We are confident that if these arguments are exposed to the light of rational analysis, they will not survive, and neither will this ordinance.
George Bachich, NVLSA chairman
back