Yesterday Oct. 17th the Cafe had its biggest day : 945 page turns, 175 unique visitors, at least 120 returning visitors
The public hearing on the Application for work along Puplit Rock Road has been rescheduled for Thursday, October 26 at 7:30pm. This was due to a production error by the Villager that resulted in the required legal notice not being printed in time to hold the hearing on the 19th.
The Planning & Zoning Commission wants to hear from the public on this Application, as well as the other items on our agenda. We take citizen concerns and comments very seriously, and incorporate them into our decision-making within the constraints of state law and our regulations.
Ken Goldsmith, PZC Chairman
Woodstock’s Scenic Road Ordinance
1. Jean Pillo of the Woodstock Conservation Commission conducted a Walking Weekend program focusing on Woodstock’s Scenic Roads on October 7, 2006. The walk was videotaped and will appear on Charter Cable Television Channel 14 on Thursday, October 19 and Thursday, October 26 at 8:30 PM.
2. Earlier this month, residents and landowners on Pulpit Rock Road, a Designated Scenic Road in Woodstock received notification by certified letter from John W. Beck, Attorney for James Scott and Lorna McWilliam, pursuant to Woodstock’s Scenic Road Ordinance, that a public hearing will be held on October 19, 2006 at 7:30 PM at Woodstock Town Hall to consider an Application by James Scott and Lorna McWilliam for an Activity on a Scenic Road. The full application is available for review in the Woodstock Planning Office.
This Application follows a cease and desist action taken by the Zoning Enforcement Officer of Woodstock against Scott and McWilliam who own property in the Fort Hill location off Pulpit Rock Road, near Taylor Brook. This property is close to the property that is the subject matter of pending lawsuits between Douglas Builders, Ken Rapoport and the Town of Woodstock. It has been reported that agents of Scott/McWilliam cleared trees, removed existing stone walls and constructed a new wall, without having applied for authorization and without first presenting the intended activity in a public hearing as required under Woodstock’s Scenic Road Ordinance. Given the apparent concern that town officials have for Woodstock Scenic Roads, as evidenced by Ms. Pillo’s recent program, as well as the intense discussions that occurred before the Planning and Zoning Commission when Douglas Builders proposed their Weavers Woods subdivision off Pulpit Rock Road, it will be very interesting to see how the Scott/McWilliams hearing proceeds on October 19.
A Concerned Citizen For Preservation of Woodstock
It is absolutely infuriating that one of the most vocal critics of the Nelson Douglas Builders proposed subdivision off Pulpit Rock Road was none other than Brian Sheldon who is responsible for the tree clearing and removal of the stone wall for Scott/McWilliam. It is rumored that Sheldon was actually one of the Woodstock people responsible for the enactment of the Woodstock Scenic Road ordinance. The hypocrisy in Woodstock continues! Is this going to be another insider game?
Can’t the Planning and Zoning Commission do something about this blatant thumbing of the nose at the Town, especially by someone who has specific knowledge of the requirements of the Ordinance? Is the hands off development attitude going to prevail again over the environmentally concerned approach? There is absolutely no way the neighbors on Pulpit Rock Road would ever have agreed to the extent of damage that has been caused to the scenic road along the Scott/McWilliam property. Can’t wait to see what Dexter Young, Dotty Durst and cohorts say at the public hearing to wiggle out of this mess! Wonder if Sheldon’s pals, Jay Livernois and Ernie Wetzel will be there to toss in some pearls of wisdom?
PZC should order Sheldon and company to replant all of the mature trees he cut down and to restore the wall to its former state with native stone. There also should be financial penalties to deter this type of disregard for Woodstock’s cherished treasures.
The public hearing on the Application for work along Puplit Rock Road has been rescheduled for Thursday, October 26 at 7:30pm. This was due to a production error by the Villager that resulted in the required legal notice not being printed in time to hold the hearing on the 19th.
The Planning & Zoning Commission wants to hear from the public on this Application, as well as the other items on our agenda. We take citizen concerns and comments very seriously, and incorporate them into our decision-making within the constraints of state law and our regulations.
Ken Goldsmith, PZC Chairman
Columbo, After reading your comment I felt compelled to drive down Pulpit Rock Road and locate the property on ‘fort hill’. The unpaved sections are quite beautiful. I don’t know what the ordinance says about scenic roads, but I can see that a substantial amount of mature trees have been removed. It looks like the entire area was bulldozed in front of the new wall and behind it as well. In an incomplete state, it does not look very natural or in keeping with other properties on the road. Perhaps the property owners have a plan to ‘naturalize’ the area after the wall is built?
Breaking news. Woodstock residents and Cafe readers will be interested to know that the Superior Court has issued a decision in the lawsuit brought by Douglas Building, Inc. against the Planning & Zoning Commission concerning the proposed subdivision on Pulpit Rock Road. The court dismissed the Applicant’s appeal of the PZC’s denial, rejecting all of the substantive and procedural claims.
I would be happy to email a copy of the decision to anyone who wants one. Just send a request to me at kengolds@charter.net. The file is about 1 mb in size. You can also get a printed copy from the Town Planner.
My understanding is that in the second lawsuit the court did reverse the (original) denial by the IWWA on procedural grounds.
Ken Goldsmith, PZC Chair
Ken Goldsmith- again please, and in even plainer English- whats the buzz about Pulpit Rock and Nelson Douglas? (We are asking Ken for clarification also. Admin)
Mr. Goldsmith
Nice to hear that the superior court uphelp PZC’s denial of the Douglas subdivision…I had not yet heard this from my attorney. I did not hear the court had yet made a decision concerning IWWA…as the court has requested several extensions..and were granted them by the parties…so I would appreicate you checking your facts.
The frustrating part of the entire process was that a group of individuals had to throw so much effort (time & money) into simply forcing the “old” PZC to truly address an obviously horrible subdivision application….something which should have been rejected without this extreme effort. I am glad the court reinforced the decision…and hope the current group will deal fairly with all applications- rather than favoring local developers.
Regarding the McWilliams reconstruction of their “stone wall”- my understanding is that the contractor doing the work- Brian Sheldon- did so without getting the proper approvals. I also understand Brian was instrumental in developing the scenic road ordinance…and should have known better. We need to understand all the facts…but based on my quick review…dead/damaged trees and small 6″ diameter trees can be removed…so knowing how much Mr Sheldon loves the road…I hope he constrained himself to the rules…and should have gained prior approval (typical of many original Woodstock natives- who feel that don’t have to necessarily follow all the rules.
For my 2 cents…Mr. McWillaims who purchased the 8 lot subdivision from Mr. Laskey- and plans to build a single house for himself…has a right to make modifications to HIS PROPERTY-so long as he and his contractors follow the rules. Rebuilding the stone wall seems acceptable under the regulations, and understand he will return the vegitation to similar or betterm condition. Land must be properly managed…and it is hard to argue a property owner doesn’t have the right to maintain his land. The issue seems primarily in HOW things were done…and I am sure Mr. Goldsmith and company can get to the facts and sort it out.
I never argued that Nelson Douglas couldn’t find spaces to build…he simply had to follow the rules- protecting sensitive environmental areas (vernal pools) and make sure the access didn’t creat safetly issues- two major factors against his development. What chapped my hide…has that Dan Very & Charlie Snow (IWWA)…and former PZC members like Steve Adams & Fred Rich…behaved like adolescents…letting their developer friends like Douglas get whatever they wanted. Someone had to make a stand…and we did. It is very unffortunate the Very & Snow continue to stay on an appointed IWWA…their past behavior has been insulting to the citizens of Woodstock. I look forward to my day in court with IWWA…the facts demonstrate my conclusions.
The court’s decision is a major boost to the Planning Commission’s efforts to get control of the development process in Woodstock. Hats off to the new Planning Commission under the leadership of chair Ken Goldsmith which is working hard to bring professionalism to the town’s land use regulation. Next, the town needs to clean up its act with the Wetlands Commission.
Sorry to be speaking in less than plain English! I try to be as precise and accurate as possible in my comments, though perhaps it comes at the cost of “plain speaking” at times. I’m sure you can appreciate the reasons for this, especially on a disputed matter.
The bottom line is this: the appeal of the PZC’s denial was dismissed. The IWWA decision was sent back to the IWWA, although in practical terms I’m not sure what that means at this point. From the perspective of the PZC, any future subdivision proposal will require a new subdivision application made under our current regulations. The issue is “settled” unless the decision is appealed to a higher court.
Ken Goldsmith, PZC Chair
Thanks Ken for coming back and explaining it all in “plain English”. You are in law school and went to Harvard- I forgive you.
Thanks Ken for not being afraid of coming to this site and providing us with this information. Very much obliged.
Congratulations to WoodstockCTCafe…I called Robinson & Cole LLC…and informed them I had seen the results FIRST on this website. You “scooped” a very respectable law firm!
Some further information will be forthcoming…but evidently IWWA’s decision was “overturned” in their decision to “reject” the Nelson subdivision proposal..with the COURT sustaining EVERY SINGLE ITEM to reject the proposal..except ONE- that I (Ken Rapoport) didn’t bring in his experts(engineer & scientist) in to personally submit a subsequent report to the IWWA…after they had previously testified for hours at the prior meeting. Yes, St. Onge “protested” as a good lawyer migfht who wants to “play the system”…that Nelson Douglas & IWWA could not examine & cross examine this FINAL document(which simply provided supplementary information). EXCEPT- that the FUNNY THING is- during the previous session…HARDLY ANYONE ASKED A SINGLE SOLITARY QUESTION OF THESE EXPERTS (particularly IWWA members)…AND THE DOUGLAS ENGINEERS- CME- PRODUCED NO RESPONSE TO THESE EXPERTS REPORTS…EXCEPT TO QUESTION THE INTEGRITY OF PHD DR. DESANTOS—AND SAID NOTHING OF CRITICAL ISSUES BROUGHT UP BY ENGINEERS MEEHAN & GOODIN!!
The court’s IWWA decision is an affront to every single citizen in Woodstock and across the state…it says that without spending thousands and thousands of dollars to bring experts to EVERY meeting in which your elected (oops…IWWA are all appointed by our selectmen!) representatives…that the court DOES NOT BELIEVE OUR CITIZENS SMART ENOUGH…to make judgement decisions based on the cummulative information provided them by a variety of sources.
THE COURT’S DECISION ON IWWA IS A WRONG. IT INVALIDATES THE PRINCIPAL OF “FAIRNESS”…AND SEEKS TO TURN THESE BOARDS INTO “COURTS”…WHICH THEY ARE NOT. I AM CONSIDERING APPEALING THIS DECISION TO A HIGHER COURT…JUST BASED ON PRINCIPAL! IT WILL BE INTERESTING TO SEE HOW THE COURT INTERPRETS THE SECOND IWWA LAW SUIT…WHERE CLEARLY DAN VERY SOUGHT TO RAM-ROD THE NELSON DOUGLAS PROPOSAL THROUGH…WITHOUT EVER EVEN ADDRESSING CITIZEN CONCERNS. THE BOARD IN THIS CASE…SIMPLY REFUSED TO EVEN DISCUSS CITIZEN CONCERNS. FOLKS- SOMETHING IS SERIOUSLY WRONG WITH OUT POLITICAL SYSTEM……………
Ken – Thanks for the congratulatory sentiments, but the kudos belong to Ken Goldsmith who chose to alert us to the court’s decision. So from all of us at the Cafe, thanks to Ken Goldsmith!
Although I don’t necessarily think that the Planning and Zoning Commission’s decision (well, non-decision- it was a 4-4 tie) on Weaver’s Woods was the right one, I do applaud the court upholding the right of the local commissions to make their own decisions.
As for Mr. Rapoport, I have to say, I have never seen anyone so adamant about continuing to beat the same (rather weary) drum after a victory. What happened to being gracious? Or at least, what happened to laying off the Caps Lock?
And as to the future of Pulpit Rock Road, the other thing we must remember that as much money as the Town and Mr. Rapoport have sunk into review and legal fees on this, Douglas Builders has sunk quite a bit as well. They are no doubt still determined to see some financial benefit from this parcel. Would a loop road with fifteen houses (five affordable) be more palatable than eight luxury homes on a cul-de-sac? I wish you all luck in fighting that one.
Debunker – great question……I recall information on this a while back that indicated the problems of the proposed development was not the number of houses but the use of the land. If all the proposed ideas harm the water resources, create a safety hazzard entering and exiting the property and alter a protected scenic road i’m not sure if any proposal will fly. Not all land is fit to be developed! Ken G – do you want to share a general perspective on that?
Admin, Before we get all fuzzy and warm with Mr. Goldsmith or anyone else on the Planning and Zoning Commission (PZC), let’s have everyone understand that our zoning regs have changed in a very big way from what they were before the last set of ammendments were installed.
I’d be willing to bet that a majority of Woodstock residents are not aware of the hardest hitting of these changes since there were only about 40-50 people at the public hearing before they were officially adopted. So, let’s ask Mr. Goldsmith if he would please answer the following questions for us so we can all understand why these seemingly “pro development” provisions were added:
> Why was the minimum road frontage requirement for new residential lots reduced from 200 feet to 100 feet?
> Why was wording added to our regulations that addresses subdivisions comprised of “Affordable Housing?” Not only was this wording added, but a special addendum was penned in that allows the developer of “Affordable Housing” to build 20% more units than he would have otherwise been able to build in a traditional development. WHY?
The only plausible answer I can come up with is that there must have been considerable influence by our building community which would includes developers, realtors and landowners who don’t care about what the countryside will look like or the economic impact that such development will have on our education system-after they’ve made their scores.
You might ask, “Why would a developer build that kind of housing in our town, anyway? Wouldn’t he continue to build the nice $400,000 homes he’s building currently?” He might, but what’s going to happen when the demand for those nice homes goes down? I’m guessing that these new regs will come to the not-so-busy developer’s rescue. He’ll turn to building “Affordable Housing” and actually get help from Federal agencies like HUD who aggressevely encourage this type of development-especially in towns like Woodstock.
If you think you’ve got problems with your school system now, wait until this seed starts to bloom.
Well, that’s a fine idea, that not all land is fit to be developed, but if a property has frontage on a public road and has adequate acreage free of wetlands, and (this is the most important point) if it is zoned for residential uses, the Planning and Zoning Commission have to be awfully careful when they deny something like this.
There’s no question that the PZC has to watch out for the overall public safety of the Town- this is their primary charge- but the Zoning and the Subdivision Regulations should be written with this in mind. If an applicant follows all the regulations, they should be approved.
If an area should not be developed (i.e. everyone’s favorite scenic road), the regulations should really reflect that.
Oh yeah, and then the Town should get ready to defend a lawsuit alleging an illegal taking of property.
Finally, just for the record, I don’t believe Mr. Goldsmith had anything to do with either the Pulpit Rock Road decision or the lawsuit. He wasn’t on the PZC until after that issue was addressed.
Joe Klusek, You’re welcome to ask these questions at any time without our prompting, but remember that you are not the only contributor to the Cafe. This is not ‘the world according to Klusek’. That world can be found at the CPS website. For those readers who are interested in the CPS site go to http://www.prudentspending.org/
Debunker, We did not glean that Mr. Goldsmith was trying to take credit for anything when he provided the info that was posted.
Admin, Identifying me as an associate of CPS has absolutely nothing to do with what I’ve said, above. Wake up, please.
Sorry Mr. Klusek. You CPS guys are not credible so your average person will regard just about ANYTHING you guys say as fabricated (either completely or in part) or presented for an ulterior motive.
I would also bet that the CPS website has never enjoyed the variety or multitudes of audience that this site does. That must annoy you guys to no end.
a person, Nice move with the head on its way to the sand. You make Magic Johnson look like he’s club-footed.
Admin-
What I said was that while I don’t support much of the positions or tactics of the CPS, your jumping on Mr. Klusek is inappropriate and shows bias.
We are flabergasted. We thought that Joe would appreciate a plug for his site. We won’t mention it again. Sorry, Joe.
Thanks, I did check out the CPS website. Needs some updating.
Nothing really engaging.
Don’t worry, Jay Livernois is back from France so CPS will be spewing their usual rant soon. My bet is their next publication will be yet another unfounded attack on the public school system and blind support for Woodstock Academy.
Debunker- A ‘taking of property’ by a state, federal, or municipality means taking over ownership. i don’t think you mean that- if a P+Z Commission denies a building permit request, they must by law, do so based on the developer not meeting their regulations. If a developer or landowner can not meet those regulations because of the natural condition of the land than that is not a ‘taking of property’. Its just a denial to approve a specific building application. If a land use attorney can chime in, I think it would be helpful.
The sort of “taking” that I am talking about is the removal of the ability of a property owner to realize any financial benefit from his property- to eliminate their ability to put the land to the “highest and best use.” In other words, if a land is zoned for a certain use, and the developer/owner can theoretically physically achieve that use on that site (i.e. it’s not entirely underwater, etc.), for the Town to deny that ability is tantamount to a taking. Whether or not the Town assumes ownership or not is secondary- the land has been de facto condemned.
Debunker,
Yes and no. The P&Z may certainly deny an application if it is not properly made or some type of conflicting ordinance in effect. The denying of land for a particular use, even if at first glance it looks like a proper application of that land, is not prima facie evidence that due process has been violated or that the town’s conduct was outrageously arbitrary.
If “3rd Voice”‘s posed question is correct and “.. all the proposed ideas harm the water resources, create a safety hazard entering and exiting the property and alter a protected scenic road” and run afoul of ordinances in this regard then the state’s burden of due process may very well be met and that use of the land denied.
In clearer words, no the state can’t arbitrarily deny a particular use of the land. However they can deny a use through due process application of ordinances and that is not “taking” the land. Just because a piece of land is zoned as residential does not mean that it can ignore all other ordinances and considerations that would preclude a particular type of development. This goes hand in hand with the idea that any use of land that is not legally allowable is not that land’s “highest and best use”.
So it seems to me that the developers will need to put together a development proposal being cognizant of existing ordinances around protected scenic roads, effects on nearby water resources and any safety issues. If they don’t do that they may very well find themselves holding a piece of land that’s “highest and best use” is as scenery.
Thanks.
Ku Klux Joe:
The frontage requirement was reduced from 200′ to 100′ to accomodate the conservation/cluster development model which provides a 50% dry land setaside for all subdivisions. Combined with wetlands found on most sites, this model is providing permanent conservation land in the range of 60%-70% of most sites.
Affordable housing development is a function of STATE LAW which overrides ALL local regulations – the WPZC has no control over this. However, the affordable housing language in the new subdivision regulations was inserted after consultation with several legal/planning experts in the state. This language actually helps protect the town from a legal challenge if the WPZC denies or reduces the density of an affordable housing project under application.
As usual, your line of thought reflects a poor understanding of the issues, and an orientation toward scare tactics versus good public policy.
I love how an ordinance supported by a majority of voters can suddenly become a moral regulation. And then a landowner who doesn’t “abide” by the new democratically selected “codes” has done something illegal or immoral.
If the majority of citizens decided to pass a “scenic green house ordinance”, and everyone not painting their house green was fined, would the “other color house” people be inconsiderate or destructive to the PUBLIC GOOD of Woodstock?
To portray the individuals who wanted their house to be white, in opposition to the “scenic green house ordinance”, as evil, destructive, bad guys who don’t care about Woodstock is just as ridiculous as portraying a landowner who chooses to develop his land as such.
To the people who think might(a majority) makes right, beware of the day a majority might choose to do the opposite. There may soon come a day when the citizens of a future Woodstock, basing their logic on your democratic anything goes priciples, decide that no one needs more than .25 acres for a house lot and all property held above that acreage will be developed or sold to be developed.
If that were passed “democraticly” would that make it right? Obviously not.
Niether is the democratic infringment of private property rights of someone who is developing their property in WHATEVER way THEY wish! Rights are an absolute(or used to be before the Consitution was discarded) irrespective of a neighbor’s wishes! Or even a majority of neighbors!
But the “majority is gospel” crowd need not worry too much, the scenic green house ordinance and the .25 acre ordinance probably won’t affect you, probably only your grandchildren.
So enjoy the abridgment of other’s rights based on majority desires. After all, isn’t it fun to be in the majority!
Questioner,
I have a few issues with your post. Let me make a quick list as I don’t have a lot of time right now.
1) Even in the face of new ordinances, current uses of property would be grandfathered.
2) While the state most certainly does have limits on what power they can use to take property on eminent domain; I agree there are some valid concerns there. Kelo_v_City of New London should give as all reason to pause. But even then it would take some creative arguing to say that the town of Woodstock is depressed and so the state could create a redevelopment plan to start taking land.
3) No constitutionally guaranteed right has ever been absolute since the nation’s inception.
Is your argument really that anyone should be able to do anything they want to their land period? So if I wanted to start storing toxic chemicals so that they will leech into our common water supply, you wouldn’t have a problem with that? Really?
Thanks, Kevin
If people want to reference the constitution, maybe they should investigate the Federalist Papers…which start out with:
“Having experienced the undeniable inefficiency of the existing federal government, you are asked to study and consider adopting a new Constitution for the United States of America”
The constitution was based on principals dating back to the Greeks, Romans, and English law…formulated after the Magna Carta…with implementation based on 18th century populations and technology in the USA. It was never intended to be “absolute”…and while it has served us well…we do indeed need to go back and discuss the document through study of the original federalist papers….and decide how implementation might have been different if our founding fathers had automobiles, internet, telephones, etc.
Debunker wonders why I am not more “gracious” about a minor “win” through one court and why I choose to utilize capitalization to emphasize my subequent anger over this entire Pulpiut Rock fiasco…it is simple, and has relatively nothing to do with the particular specifics of the regulations. It is simply my indignation that “concerns” by citizens in this town have often been ignored by special friends of developers sitting on appointed & elected boards. The proposed 8-lot devlopment by Douglas on Pulpit Rock Road violated nearly every conservation issue and land use regulation on the books…yet had the neighbors not thrown enormous amounts of money and time to simply force the boards to address those issues…these special interest friends of the developers would have ignored the regulations…and approved the development. This has nothing to do with forcing everyone to have “green” houses as discussed by the “Questioner” or for that matter…to limit what people can do to their property. It was about making everyone (regardless if they are “natives” of Woodstock) follow the regulations….and about healthy compromise…proposing alternative development plans that better balance the environmental and safety issues (with a 4-5 lot subdivision)…and still enable the “landowner” to make significant profit. We do not need to get lost in the discussion of “fundamental property rights”…at least not in this case. All I was ever wanted was to have a “fair” hearing….and for the boards to address specific issues and the developers to respond to the concerns of citizens and outside “experts”. While Mr. Goldsmith has taken steps to better accomplish fair hearings…and attempt to truly balance landowner rights against society’s need for prudent ecological and conservation considerations…the IWWA leadership is still stuck in the mode of developer/friend favoritism…reading the regulations so narrowly as to completely discount reasonable ecological and conservation concerns. Outside wetland specialists have commented to these board members….but “appointed for life” and secure in their political loyalties…they have no interest in average citizen concerns.
The Pulpit Rock Road battle was never simply about the Douglas development…it was about shedding light on an arrogant and closed political system within the town of Woodstock. Progress has been made…but anyone who has been forced to confront the bureacracy of the Woodstock political system( or the state/federal political structures) realizes we still have a long way to go. So I am still wondering what I should be gracious for…given that I have had to fight every step of the way…simply to get people to follow the rules?
I urge every member of the Woodstock land use boards and commissions (Planning and Zoning Commission, Inland Wetlands and Watercourse Agency, and Conservation Commission) and all citizens of Woodstock to read very closely the Superior Court decision regarding Douglas Builders …(see “Kudos to the Court” the new feature article, Admin)
Kudos to the Court!
Rock on Woodstock Planning and Zoning Commission and Woodstock Conservation Commission!
Get With It Woodstock Inland Wetlands And Watercourses Agency!
Be Heard Citizens of Woodstock!
I am shocked that there are Americans who think that rights or Constitutional principles are not absolute!!!!
Can any of you non-absolutists answer me why there is this silly addendum to the Constitution called the Bill Of Rights???
I hope that the dead soldiers of the continental army and especially GW himself have enough dirt over them to have not heard that statement come from one of their descendants!
Bowman, it is my position that a landowner is able by right to do anything on his land. Unless a neighbors rights are clearly violated. This would mean things like chemicals, excessive noise, fumes, smoke etc. crossing into a neighboring property. WITHIN REASON!
The sound of my car engine cannot be called a violation, the smell or smoke of my grill, the smoke from my chimney, suds from my dogs’ shampoo, a leak of oil in my driveway, these things cannot reasonably be called violations.
Now if I dumped gallons of gas near my property line, or anywhere, if I played the Red Hot Chilli peppers at 60 decibels at three in the morning, if I fired gunshots in the direction of neighbors, if I had illegal bonfires and smoked out neighbors, those would be things I could be LEGALLY and MORALLY stopped from doing. But the mere existence of the sight of my house, of the fact that a neighbor doesn’t like the color of my shingles or my living where there used to be woods, doesn’t give him moral or legal jusification for infringing my property rights.
There are many gray areas in neighbor interactions, but the existence of a neighbor is not one of them.
Ken I have and have read all of the Federalist papers, and do not understand their insertion in your anti-development argument.
I fail to see your assertion that technology, “automobiles, internet, telephones, etc.” would have changed the implementation of the document.
Are you saying that telephones would have changed the founder’s views of the sacrosanct right of free speech?
Are you asserting that televisions would have made Jefferson change his mind about freedom of religion?
Are you asserting that the existence of automobiles would have caused Marshal to rethink his decision in Georgia vs. Cherokee Indians???
One need not read the Federalist papers, especially the dozen or so on the history of the Greek City states by Madison, to understand the bill of rights. I doubt ANY of the states would have ratified the Constitution if they knew what Bowman and Ken claim about rights as non-absolute.
Call me an out of touch idealist if you will, but that thing about life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness, that right to bear arms stuff, that right to speak my mind without censure non-absoluteness, I take as the core values of a proper life as man.
By the way guys, about that freedom of speech non-absolute “right”, well starting tommorrow I heard the Government is revoking it. It has been nice chatting with you fellows and surfing the internet. Since they’re shutting down the internet tomorrow, au revoir and bon chance!
This idea of “absolute rights” was prevalent during the time of our nation’s inception. It is based of of Sir William Blackstone’s near contemporary writings in “Commentaries on the Laws of England”. To understand what the phrase meant in contemporary terms you need to read chapter 1, “Of the Absolute Rights of Individuals”.
Blackstone had stated that, yes men do have absolute rights. However these rights must necessarily be abridged by laws as a trade off for living in society.
“But every man, when he enters into society, gives up a part of his natural liberty, as the price of so valuable a purchase; and, in consideration of receiving the advantages of mutual commerce, obliges himself to conform to those laws, which the community has thought proper to establish. And this species of legal obedience and conformity is infinitely more desirable, than that wild and savage liberty which is sacrificed to obtain it.”
This is the concept behind “absolute rights” that was common in the late 18th century. While the bill of rights is an enumeration of many of those rights (and some not mentioned by Blackstone), it was also accepted as part of the principle that as a trade off on entering society some of those rights would need to be curtailed. Most notably the old axiom that your rights stop where mine begin. The “wild and savage liberty” that absolute rights implies cannot exist in a society when those rights overlap the rights of others. Blackstone understood this and by reading his writings and understanding his principles so did our founding fathers.
It is interesting to note that Blackstone stated that curtailing of the natural rights should be done only if it advances the needs of society.
“…that even laws themselves, weather made with or without our consent, if they regulate and constrain our conduct in matters of mere indifference, without any good end in view, are laws destructive of liberty: whereas if any public advantage can arise from observing such precepts, the control of our private inclinations, in one or two particular points, will conduce to preserve our general freedom in others of more importance; by supporting that state, of society, which alone can secure our independence.”
This principal you can find in our current legal system when the courts look for an overriding state interest when laws are curtailing some of our “absolute rights.” Blackstone’s idea of natural rights and the connotations around them have changed little in implementation or practice in the last 200+ years (in the US at least).
Thanks.
Bowman,
First it’s nice to meet a blogger who understands some history.
In many ways I agree with much of what you say in substance, but I believe we disagree in specific applications.
Let me clarify what I call “absolute rights”.
The right to free speech is an absolute. The argument that the public may be “harmed” or “offended” by my words are not an excuse to violate my absolute right to speech.
Barring slander or libel, which are falsehoods directed at individuals, I may state an opinion about any one or thing I choose.
No one can silence me legally or morally, the only option others have is to not listen to me.
Conversely, no one is obliged to listen to me or financially enable me to speak; ie. provide me with a microphone or tv. camera.
But even were I a Nazi, my irrational hatred and opinions about Jews would not give anyone a RIGHT, no matter how offended and disgusted they were with my beliefs, to silence me.
That is the nature of an absolute right.
By entering into society, I have sacrificed the ability to violate other’s individual rights, but I have not given up any fundamental, absolute rights of my own. As a Nazi, I would have given up my “right” if you will, to commit another holocaust against Jews, but not my right to opinions and the voicing of them.
Rather than Blackstone, I would say that John Locke was the main idealogical influnce on our founders. Many parts of the Declaration are almost verbatim Locke. Blackstone was more important to men like John Marshal and John Adams than the average Constitutional conventioneer.
I don’t believe any of the founders would have agreed to the curtailing of rights even if such a heinous thing could have “advanced” society.
First, you cannot advance a society by regressing it.
Second, the founders, such as Franklin, stated that the man who gives up some liberty for a little temporary security, deserves neither liberty nor security.
Third, the founders believed that governments were created to Protect rights, not be a source of the destruction of them, and this principle was the impetus behind the revolution.
The trade off you speak of from a state of nature into a state of civilized society is a little too vague.
By coming into society from a state of wild and savage nature, you agree to abide by the laws that protect all individuals from harm. But you have not sacrificed the loss of a right to kill your fellow man. You never had the right to do so, only in a state of nature, there was no government to stop you from doing so. There is no such thing as a right that violates someone else’s rights, which is why forcing me to pay for someone else’s medical bills or a doctor to work for free can never be a “right”.
But I agree with you that implementation of collective “wishes” over individuals have been supported by the courts for at least a century. The state of Georgia was “advanced” by the removal of the Cherokee Indians from their lawfully owned and settled(in the complete sense of the word) lands within Georgia. Now if the immorally and illegally gained lands benfited the greater good of Georgia, does that make the act by Georgia moral??? (John Marshal and the Supreme Court denied them the legality of this forced removal, clearly he wasn’t reading Blackstone that day)
In the Douglas case, the courts are on the side against the individual’s property rights, but that doesn’t change the immorality of the hostile acts against them.(the builders)
A society can never be furthered by the abridgment of an individual’s rights for the wishes of another(s).
Rather, that society is in a spiral, not up and towards any happy place, but slowly down towards a gray, rightless, misery.
Bowman, I have known of Blackstone but have never actually read him. I will do so in the near future. Thanks for the info and blog.
I certainly suspect some equivocation between our uses of the term “absolute rights” might be at play. As I’m sure you know English can be a very vague language.
I’d like to clarify the idea behind no one being able to silence your speech. Under current legal understanding no one can silence or censor the content of that speech. You may, however, be restricted in the “time, place or manner” of that speech. For example you do have a right to complain about (insert name of your most hated politician here), but that does not mean you can set up a PA system and do it outside town hall at 2:00 AM. Is that an “absolute right” to free speech? I’d say no but as you have stated above it all depends on what you mean by “absolute right”.
I don’t want to get into a debate on who was a greater influence to the Constitution (Locke or Blackstone) but I’d say that this is an easily debatable point for either side. Much of the constitution and many pre-government documents such as the declaration of Independence are also almost verbatim Blackstone. Freedom of the press, Blackstone; separation of powers, Blackstone, ideas behind inalienable rights Blackstone. It is fair to say that from the late 1700′s to the late 1800′s Blackstone was the primary reference and influence behind almost all legal action and training in the US. He is still used today by the SCOTUS (The Supreme Court of the United States – admin)when dealing with intent on early and pre-constitutional issues. I find it of no small coincidence that just a few years after Blackstone’s publishing in the colonies (about 1772) his ideas start showing up all over our pre and post revolutionary documents.
On the other hand you could argue that Blackstone was in turn influenced by Locke…
As for your three points:
First: If you look at the writings about the constitutional debates it was not a foregone conclusion that the bill of rights needed to be included at all. There certainly was quite a bit of discussion about what it meant and why it was needed. It is safe to say that it would be a mistake to think that all delegates to the convention and all the representatives in states that dealt with ratification were in agreement with what this translated to in implementation. Certainly within only a few years we had the constitutionally questionable “Alien and Sedition Acts” passed by many of these same people which restricted free speech in a way we would find unacceptable. The general unpopularity of these laws was their undoing but their very existence shows that there was some contemporary questioning over exactly what can and can’t be limited for these “absolute rights”.
In the years leading up to the civil war there were a plethora of state laws that limited the content of speech. A favorite target in Southern states was to limit by threat of imprisonment any speech in favor of freeing slaves. But abolitionists were far from the only target. Also targeted were religious minorities, suffragists, labor organizers etc. These laws were normally framed under the headings of sedition, anarchy or conspiracy. Granted the Fourteenth Amendment was not yet in place but there was obvious disagreement over the meaning of the first, even on the federal level.
Wartime and near war has also always been a favorite time to limit speech. As indicated above there are examples going back to 1792. These numerous examples make me question any claims of “absolute rights”.
Second: Once again I’d say that it would be a mistake to look at the anecdotal evidence of one founder and try to apply it to the entire convention and the ratifying conventions of the states.
Third: I’d say that it is a little simplistic to say that the impetus behind the revolution was all about the preservation of individual rights. There were a myriad of factors that drove this such and financial and power base. While there were certainly many idealists involved in our revolution there were many who where there for other reasons. It is this group as a whole who debated about, compromised and ratified our constitution, not just the few well publicized idealists we hear about today.
You state that “There is no such thing as a right that violates someone else’s rights…” and that may well be a large part of the basis behind our difference. I take it to mean, under your definition, that I don’t have the right to do something to my property that would harm you or your property. Fair enough. But don’t you find that there is room for reasonable people to debate about what does in fact harm you or your property and thus where the limits of my rights are? If so, doesn’t that make this concept of “absolute rights” meaningless? If there is reasonable disagreement over their boundaries I don’t see how they can be absolute. But hey, you know what they say about opinions.
Thanks.
[...] Kudos to the Court! – ‘Quid Pro Quo’ Discusses the Pulpit Rock Decision Please see an erudite discussion and debate of the “rights” of citizenry between ‘Questioner’ and ‘Bowman’ stemming from comments by ‘Debunker’ and Ken Rapoport in the comments section of the article “A Concerned Citizen Speaks For Preservation“. Their discussion is worthy of being an article but it’s too good to remove from the context comment section. Admin is afraid something would be lost by making this exchange an article. Fascinating. The Academy appears to be ‘jumping the gun’ in the article today, Oct 25, in the Norwich Bull. Readers can obtain the full copy of the Court’s decision from Ken Goldsmith (kengolds@charter.net), Chairman of the WPZC, or the Cafe (cafe_administrator @hotmail.com; a copy supplied to us by Ken) [...]
Interesting comments, but unfortunately I do not have the time to adequately participate in the discussion…except to point out that my comments about redefining the exisiting US Constitution based on arguments made within the Federalist Papers…appears obvious to me when considering several of its arguments for the importance of balancing state and federal governments. In todays world, where one can drive from Maine to Maryland in one day, communicate through the internet to millions of people,engage in interactive video conferencing or fly from east to west coast in 5 hours…would Rhode Island still be considered a state? The Federalist papers beg its present day audience to consider redefining what should be a “state” (Northeast, Mid-Atlantic, Southeast), their respective roles and responsibilities…which then translates to some redefinition of Federal and local town/country government roles & responsibilities. The often used “premise” in the Federalist Papers speaks of the connection between the States and its citizens…is this really true today? Or do we see outselves as a larger community of New Englanders? Could specialized, interconnected environmental issues such as Wetlands & Watercourse be better dealt with a truly competent regional board? Change is essential for survival…and while our founding fathers were brilliant in their work, it is essential that we at least begin this disccussion….or this “democratic experiment” is bound to eventually fail.
We might also consider getting permission to publish the 85 Federalist Papers (translated into modern english)- one at a time here on Woodstockctcafe…and begin the process (each month?) of discussion of how we might modify things given the technological changes which have occured over 300 years. It could be a purely academic exercise…but certainly it might be helpful to engage the public. These documents were meant to invoke discussions…and who could argue that things are working so well…that we should not again engage in public discourse about these topics. Weren’t the original colonists simply going back to the basis of English law… Locke and Blackstone to argue for equal rights as all other British citizens enjoyed, and to further point out where the current law at the time…had been poorly implemented such that the original concepts where no longer truly being followed? I would suggest we are at the same crossroads, but with the benefits of a constitution, with such “absolute” mechanisms of “free speech” (ignoring NSA/Homeland Security infringements) to peacefully engage in the discussion of the ideas, and maybe more importantly, the mechanisms through which we implement these “absolute” concepts essential to the freedom of humankind.
If anyone has an interest in Ken’s suggestion, the Federalist Papers can be located in several different places on the net and easily linked to.
Here are two:
http://supreme.lp.findlaw.com/documents/federalist/toc.html
http://thomas.loc.gov/home/histdox/fedpapers.html
I certainly agree with Ken and we shouldn’t be too brittle and unchanging in our view of the constitution (probably not on the particulars of how we should flex, but that just makes life more interesting). Such static ideas are unlikely to withstand the test of time. The FFs were just men and products of their environment; they did an excellent job but they have no way to predict and fully deal with the changes that have gone on in our society and the technology that supports it.
I’d quibble a bit and say that Locke and Blackstone wrote about ideals. Many of the ideals they spoke of never fully existed in actual implementation in English common law. In reality the colonists were not trying go get back to any basis that ever existed, they were trying to do a better implementation of those ideals.
In our system those ideals have been in a constant state of flux as have been the relative powers of the three branches. Given the current war (undefined as it is) I am in no way surprised that the pendulum is swinging in the direction that it is. But my confidence is buoyed in knowing that the pendulum has swung further in this direction in our nation’s past and it has always ultimately swung back the other way. That’s not to say that we should sit back and wait for it to happen, changing events and attitudes have always forced the swing in the other direction.
Thanks.
Back original topic of this post – Why have a Scenic Road Ordinance if you do not abide by it’s requirements? Designation as a scenic raod doesn’t mean you can’t do anything along the road. But it does mean if you are going to make a change within the Right of Way, you have to go to P&Z and there will be a hearing so people will have an opporuntity to comment on the proposed change BEFORE it is made.