Jefferson Review

	Jefferson Review
	"Your Liberty is Our Interest"	June 3, 2002
Home / Archives / Search / Links / Quotes / Book Reviews / Advertise /Contact us / Subscribe / Calendar

Floyd's Fork Property Owners Win Reprieve

by Theresa Fritz Camoriano

Louisville, KY. About 200 people attended a meeting of the Jefferson County Planning and Zoning Commission on May 30, 2002 concerning the Floyd's Fork Overlay District, with the majority of property owners voicing strong opposition to the proposed restrictions on their property rights in the form of mandatory setbacks, required preservation of 30% of their property as "open space", and other restrictions. Another source of complaint was the lack of notification of property owners by the Commission. The owners said they learned of this proposal by word of mouth, not by any notification from the Commission. The Commission resolved to table this portion of the plan while it works with the property owners to determine what would be acceptable.

Don Reed, President of the Jefferson County Agriculture Society, testified that the zoning code is a tax which falls disproportionately on one group of people, many of whom are least able to afford it. He proposed that, if a scenic corridor is to be established, the Commission should start at the area along the East End Bridge. He also made several specific recommendations.

Brian Alvey, of the Kentucky Farm Bureau, said the Bureau does not want to see land devalued by easements and restrictions. He said the land is the only pension fund for many property owners, and restrictions would take away those "pensions".

Don Ridge, a property owner, and his wife Sonja, testified that these regulations would be taking $500-600 million dollars of property value. He said taking without compensation is unconstitutional. He also agreed that a scenic corridor in the Northeastern part of the county would be a good idea, preferably beginning in Mimi Runyon's back yard! Many other property owners echoed his sentiments. Sherman Cornell, a tree farmer in the Floyd's Fork area, said he believes in balance, not in urban planners imposing "feel good" stuff on the property owners. He said the property owners were taking good care of their land, and he did not want these restrictions imposed on them.

Jeff Frank, President of Future Fund Land Trust, a nonprofit corporation that preserves land along Floyd's Fork, said he was indignant at the disrespectful manner in which the audience conducted itself. He said the Commission was not putting on enough restrictions and should do more. He was very dismayed that his son noticed the tadpoles were forced to swim in muddy water in the creek. Mr. Frank made it very clear that he cared much more about tadpoles than about his neighbors in the Floyd's Fork area!

Winnie Helper said she lives in St. Matthews and she believes those who oppose these regulations are anarchists. Ms. Helper had several specific recommendations, including prohibiting property owners from disposing of dead trees. Diana Shott, of Anchorage, supported the plan to preserve green space.

Skyler Alt testified that he had worked on the committee that wrote the regulations and explained that there is a great difference between "shall" and "should", with "shall" being mandatory and "should" being something toward which the Commission would strive. He said most of the people's concerns were about things that were not mandatory. Before he could sit down, some property owners put the regulations under his nose, told him to read the "shall" language, and he said he was surprised and would want that to be changed.

Members of the Commission repeatedly stated that they did not want to "shove anything down your throats". However, that is what laws do. If there is no intention of using force or of "shoving something down people's throats", then there is no need for a law. If 30% of these properties are already in the flood plain or are too steep to be practical for construction, then there certainly is no need for the Commission to establish a law to restrict the property -- it can be restricted by nature, not by force. Obviously, the intention is to make restrictions far greater than those that would be imposed by nature alone.

Environmentalist Tom Fitzgerald said that this proposal is the best that could be created. He denounced people who oppose these regulations, saying that today's opponent of regulations on his own property is tomorrow's requester for the government to restrict others' use of their property. He said, if you have a better way, please come forward. When it was my turn to speak, I said that there is a better way, and it is the common law of nuisance and trespass. The common law can be used by property owners to protect against the establishment of smelly hog farms near their homes and against the dumping of sewage on their property. There is no need for these excessive regulations. Property owners are the best stewards of the land, and their rights should be respected. If people want further restrictions, they should pay for them. A bystander told my daughter that I didn't know what I was talking about -- that there is no law against hog farms. Of course, the common law does not provide a written law against hog farms or anything else, but it gives a property owner the right to defend himself against anyone who interferes with his peaceful enjoyment of his property by odors, noise, excessive light, and other types of nuisances. This is well-known to any first year law student but apparently is not well-understood by the general public. Tina Halbig testified to the Commission that it should notify the property owners and should make decisions out in the open; decisions should not be made by a single person behind closed doors.

Frederick Strodemeyer said he was glad to find out that his area was "special", since they had "especially" never gotten anything from the county except electricity and blacktop roads. And when they finally got water, they were overcharged for it, paying $5900 where those in Shelby county had paid $3200.