Dear Editor:
I have noticed subtle but revealing changes in the words used by zoning advocates. At first the only reason given at the area information meetings was "strip joints, strip joints, strip joints." Since that has not been perceived as a threat they have moved to the idea that zoning preserves private property rights. That is a supreme oxymoron and simply ridiculous. Currently property can pretty much be used as the owner desires. Regulating use of property by limiting certain areas to uses such as single family, multifamily, commercial, agricultural and light industrial removes property rights.
Another attempt to snare a few votes was seen at the Jefferson City area zoning meeting. The public works director said that restrictions to recreational vehicle use would not be enforced except when complaints are received. If it is not going to be enforced why is it in the plan? There are people who would go to extra trouble and expense to follow the law. Why is living in a recreational vehicle a problem anyway?
On a recent Sunday morning radio program a public official seems to have a memory problem. He repeatedly said "I've heard ..." but never remembers who said it or where he heard it. Hearing disconnected voices should be treated not used as evidence supporting zoning. A woman caller near the end of the program supported zoning and described her property as eight acres. That is a big coincidence since the zoning advocates on the program described his property identically at a Tea Party meeting on zoning.
Could it be the same eight acres?
Such tactics reflect desperation of zoning advocates.
Movie title
Grade: grade here
Cast: cast here
Director: director here
Rating: rating here
Running time: minutes
Showtimes and Ticket Info