05 April 2005
Activists Continue Assault on Property Rights in SD
Dakota Rural Action Activists hire Abourezk to Attack Dairies
As reported in the Moody County Enterprise, an abortive attempt last fall by the Dakot Rural Action group to try to prevenat permits for development of large dairy operations in Moody County is continuing.
Last Fall, before the election, I was contacted by a DRA activist to sign a petition to try to force this matter onto the ballot. The Chief responded forcefully and negatively without profanity, but forcefully enough that Mrs. Chief allowed as to how it wasn't necessary to be so blunt towards an otherwise nice lady who was, after all just working for her political viewpoint, just as I have been know to do for mine. Point well taken, but we still didn't sign her petition! This effort was not successful, and after court appeals, the measure was not allowed on the ballot, resulting in the current appeal to the SD Supremes.
Basically what was, and apparently still is the goal of their effort is to short-circuit the legally defined administrative procedure for the clearence of permits for the development of these sorts of operations. In the relevant cases concerning the Brittania and the Prairie Gold dairies, all necessary federal (EPA, USDA, etc.), state (DNR), and county requirements had been fully complied with, and the necessary permits obtained. At the time of the legal appeal for the vote, the Brittania Dairy was well into construction, and work had also been started at the Prairie Gold site. (Both are in operation at this time.) In an ex post facto exercise, the DRA sought, and still seeks to bring this to a county-wide vote, at which time they will trot out all the typicalenvironmentalist envirowacko and social democracy socialist type arguments to justify their group in claiming a special right to dictate to any landowners in the county what they can and cannot do with their land.
In the case of the Britannia Dairy especially, the Chief regards this as being downright abusive. Mr. Ailsby and his partner, having liquidated the entireity of their agricultural and personal property in the UK, came over here, just as our ancestors did in the past, to take advantage of better opportunities than those available in Tony Blair's Eurocratic version of theUnited Kingdom Airstrip One. Once they got over here and jumped through all the legalistic hoops and got started with their enterprise, the DRA in it's infinite wisdom decides that it can't accept someone doing something that might actually involve economic development.
The nut of the legal issue, as reported in the Enterprise, ws stated by the long-time liberal activist and ex-Senator:
Abourezk, on the other hand, indicated that the Board of Adjustment had complete discretion on whether to allow or deny the dairy permits, and therefore that discretion made it a legislative decision. He argued that any time permits are issued, it is a legislative action and is subject to a referendum by the people.
The obvious problem with this legal doctrine is the ALL PERMITS ISSUED BY THE COUNTY WOULD BE SUBJECT TO AN ELECTION VOTE! For example, if the Chief wanted a building permit to put up a new garage on his quarter section, it would be subject to county-wide approval by a referendum! R.I.P. to any surviving semblence of private property rights!
Further into the Enterprise article, it quotes Bill Nibbelink, who was described described as "county commissioner and member of Dakota Rural Action". In addition, Nibbelink, known to some as "Mr. Democrat" of the County Courthouse due to his long time advocacy and activism for the jackass party. Anyway, Nibbelink said:
"This action by DRA is not against dairy farms, but rather the right of the citizens of Moody County to vote on issues that affect their quality of life. It is a fundamental right of democracy."
This attitude serves to illustrate one of the Chief's favorite definitions of democracy: "Three wolves and two sheep voting on what's for lunch.", and Bill, in case you hadn't noticed, WE DO NOT LIVE IN A DEMOCRACY! Our government, by intentional design, is that of a representative republic, where we elect people to represent us, for example as county commissioneres, and they act in our behalf. There are also administrative procedures established by law, to allow for an orderly processing of the decisions that come up in the normal course of events - for example, the approval of building, business, and other permits.
In addition, there is an even more insidious attitude expressed in Nibbelink's statement: the reference to "vote on issues that affect their quality of life." If this is the case, then could the County vote to force out a church denomination, if it was held to be deleterious to the majority's quality of life? How about closing a book store that sold controversial publications like the Communist Manifesto, Ayn Rand's Atlas Shrugged, or even The Bible? Why not vote about liquor sales permits, and video lottery outlets? Speaking of videos, how about voting to close a video store that has R and NC-17 rated videos? Arguably any or all of these can impact the "quality of life" in a community, but should they all be subject of a vote? According to Nibbelink, apparently so! This attitude can and will lead to a state of regulation and government control and oversight involving virtually all aspects of life, where anything not allowed is forbidden, alles in ordnung is the rule, and it would behoove one and all to make sure to keep their "papers" in order!
Anyway, the DRA has dragged this whole thing up to the SD Supremes, so the outcome is in the hands of the court at this point. MY layman's understanding of the law would seem to indicate that the routine approval of permits is certainly an administrative, and not a legislative function. Think about this for a minute: does the Legislature in Pierre approve poermits, or does the relevant oversight agency act on such requests? Likewise, at the Federal level, does congress pass on the environmental compliance of a new business, or does the EPA handle it? OK. So why is it different at a county or local level? It isn't - unless you adopt NIMBY (Not In My BackYard) as your knee-jerk response to any sort of development that doesn't fall into your definition of heaven on earth. If this is your attitude, then any measure to stop it, no matter how much it may warp the legal system is OK. This may be even more so if the development carries the fatal whiff of diabolism that is inferred by the term "corporation". Judging by the DRA's rhetoric of "social justice" on their website, apparently this may well be a powerful motivator for this activist approach.
Unfortunately, once something hits the court system these days, judges have proven themselves all too willing to do as the darned well please, independent of the content of the law and the Constitution, by freely using deconstructionist and creative interpretations. Hopefully things aren't that bad yet in South Dakota, but time will tell. The SD Supremes will let us know in 60-90 days. Stay tuned for further developments.
As reported in the Moody County Enterprise, an abortive attempt last fall by the Dakot Rural Action group to try to prevenat permits for development of large dairy operations in Moody County is continuing.
Last Fall, before the election, I was contacted by a DRA activist to sign a petition to try to force this matter onto the ballot. The Chief responded forcefully and negatively without profanity, but forcefully enough that Mrs. Chief allowed as to how it wasn't necessary to be so blunt towards an otherwise nice lady who was, after all just working for her political viewpoint, just as I have been know to do for mine. Point well taken, but we still didn't sign her petition! This effort was not successful, and after court appeals, the measure was not allowed on the ballot, resulting in the current appeal to the SD Supremes.
Basically what was, and apparently still is the goal of their effort is to short-circuit the legally defined administrative procedure for the clearence of permits for the development of these sorts of operations. In the relevant cases concerning the Brittania and the Prairie Gold dairies, all necessary federal (EPA, USDA, etc.), state (DNR), and county requirements had been fully complied with, and the necessary permits obtained. At the time of the legal appeal for the vote, the Brittania Dairy was well into construction, and work had also been started at the Prairie Gold site. (Both are in operation at this time.) In an ex post facto exercise, the DRA sought, and still seeks to bring this to a county-wide vote, at which time they will trot out all the typical
In the case of the Britannia Dairy especially, the Chief regards this as being downright abusive. Mr. Ailsby and his partner, having liquidated the entireity of their agricultural and personal property in the UK, came over here, just as our ancestors did in the past, to take advantage of better opportunities than those available in Tony Blair's Eurocratic version of the
The nut of the legal issue, as reported in the Enterprise, ws stated by the long-time liberal activist and ex-Senator:
Abourezk, on the other hand, indicated that the Board of Adjustment had complete discretion on whether to allow or deny the dairy permits, and therefore that discretion made it a legislative decision. He argued that any time permits are issued, it is a legislative action and is subject to a referendum by the people.
The obvious problem with this legal doctrine is the ALL PERMITS ISSUED BY THE COUNTY WOULD BE SUBJECT TO AN ELECTION VOTE! For example, if the Chief wanted a building permit to put up a new garage on his quarter section, it would be subject to county-wide approval by a referendum! R.I.P. to any surviving semblence of private property rights!
Further into the Enterprise article, it quotes Bill Nibbelink, who was described described as "county commissioner and member of Dakota Rural Action". In addition, Nibbelink, known to some as "Mr. Democrat" of the County Courthouse due to his long time advocacy and activism for the jackass party. Anyway, Nibbelink said:
"This action by DRA is not against dairy farms, but rather the right of the citizens of Moody County to vote on issues that affect their quality of life. It is a fundamental right of democracy."
This attitude serves to illustrate one of the Chief's favorite definitions of democracy: "Three wolves and two sheep voting on what's for lunch.", and Bill, in case you hadn't noticed, WE DO NOT LIVE IN A DEMOCRACY! Our government, by intentional design, is that of a representative republic, where we elect people to represent us, for example as county commissioneres, and they act in our behalf. There are also administrative procedures established by law, to allow for an orderly processing of the decisions that come up in the normal course of events - for example, the approval of building, business, and other permits.
In addition, there is an even more insidious attitude expressed in Nibbelink's statement: the reference to "vote on issues that affect their quality of life." If this is the case, then could the County vote to force out a church denomination, if it was held to be deleterious to the majority's quality of life? How about closing a book store that sold controversial publications like the Communist Manifesto, Ayn Rand's Atlas Shrugged, or even The Bible? Why not vote about liquor sales permits, and video lottery outlets? Speaking of videos, how about voting to close a video store that has R and NC-17 rated videos? Arguably any or all of these can impact the "quality of life" in a community, but should they all be subject of a vote? According to Nibbelink, apparently so! This attitude can and will lead to a state of regulation and government control and oversight involving virtually all aspects of life, where anything not allowed is forbidden, alles in ordnung is the rule, and it would behoove one and all to make sure to keep their "papers" in order!
Anyway, the DRA has dragged this whole thing up to the SD Supremes, so the outcome is in the hands of the court at this point. MY layman's understanding of the law would seem to indicate that the routine approval of permits is certainly an administrative, and not a legislative function. Think about this for a minute: does the Legislature in Pierre approve poermits, or does the relevant oversight agency act on such requests? Likewise, at the Federal level, does congress pass on the environmental compliance of a new business, or does the EPA handle it? OK. So why is it different at a county or local level? It isn't - unless you adopt NIMBY (Not In My BackYard) as your knee-jerk response to any sort of development that doesn't fall into your definition of heaven on earth. If this is your attitude, then any measure to stop it, no matter how much it may warp the legal system is OK. This may be even more so if the development carries the fatal whiff of diabolism that is inferred by the term "corporation". Judging by the DRA's rhetoric of "social justice" on their website, apparently this may well be a powerful motivator for this activist approach.
Unfortunately, once something hits the court system these days, judges have proven themselves all too willing to do as the darned well please, independent of the content of the law and the Constitution, by freely using deconstructionist and creative interpretations. Hopefully things aren't that bad yet in South Dakota, but time will tell. The SD Supremes will let us know in 60-90 days. Stay tuned for further developments.
