Referral Petitions Circulating on Lake County Zoning Ordinance

The Lake County Commission passed its lengthy zoning ordinance update on Tuesday. Already, county residents are circulating petitions to put the revisions to a vote. An eager reader says my friend and Madison resident Paul Nordaune just came by asking for signatures.

Nordaune and fellow petitioneers (expect a strong Winfred contingent) need to collect and submit 457 registered voter signatures (that's 5% of the total counted at general election last month) within 20 days of the ordinance's publication to put the matter to a public vote.

Now I generally say "Yahoo, democracy!" to referral drives. However, let me put this zoning ordinance into perspective. I sit on the new Lake County Water Quality Committee. We spent some of our meeting time reviewing the zoning ordinance, discussing impacts on water issues, and making some style and form recommendations (this grammar teacher loves that stuff). In a series of hour-long discussions over maybe six meetings, we barely got through the first fifth of the ordinances, and that was just the definitions.

The zoning ordinance is a big, complicated piece of local legislation. It has to be, to anticipate all possible legal challenges and complications that new development and cranky lawyers could raise. It does not lend itself easily to popular discussion. Every voter will be able to identify one small provision or another that he or she finds objectionable... and the only option at the ballot box will be to discard the whole thing.

But so be it. I will not stand in the way of neighbors calling for participation in the local political process. I'm betting my neighbors will almost certainly reject the zoning ordinance changes. The county commission will then have to get input, find out which provisions torqued off the most voters, and then write up a new version that addresses enough of those issues to pass muster with the public.

And in the process, we'll have learned a lot more about our local zoning rules. Keep on circulating, Paul!

Say here's a thought: if the petitioneers get the job done quickly enough, could Lake County save some tax dollars by scheduling the election on February 1, the same day as the school district's bond election for the new gym and high school renovations? And if they did, could coupling the two votes impact the turnout for the school election?

Referendum or Not: About Those Petitions...

South Dakota's ban on smoking in most public places and work places (with exceptions for lodging and cigar bars) may go into effect tomorrow with a stroke of Secretary Chris Nelson's pen. Or maybe not. Smoking supporters are writing up a lawsuit to challenge the challenge that invalidated thousands of the signatures they gathered to forestall the implementation of the ban until a public vote 16 months from now.

I have no problem with either challenge. All parties involved are executing their rights under the law, and that's fine. And, as an added bonus, by spending their money on legal action, the smoke lobby and the health lobby are burning up money from their campaign coffers. I'd like to think that means that if we do get a public vote on this issue, we won't see as many ads or as much junk mail cluttering up our mindspace.

Speaking of money, all those invalid signatures could be a moneymaker for the state. Many of the 8845 bad signatures came from folks who either weren't registered to vote or signed more than once (anyone do both?). SDCL 2-1-6 makes such improper signing a Class 1 misdemeanor, one step shy of a felony. We could fine the bogus signatories the $2000 allowed by law for attempting to subvert the democratic process. If we fined even a thousand of these scribbling ne'er-do-wells, we'd have two million dollars—and that could fill a lot of potholes.

Now I've had some fun making fun of petition circulators who concentrated their efforts around bars, where it only stands to reason you're going to encounter a higher percentage of people who aren't in any condition to be operating complicated machinery like cars and pens. But about 2500 signers had their inky efforts rejected due not to their own misdemeanory but to mistakes by the notaries public, who did silly things like putting the wrong expiration dates by their seals.

One can argue (perhaps statutorily—see SDCL 2-1-11) that we should give petitions wide berth and not let technicalities nullify petitioners' honest intentions. I can sympathize strongly with that position: we rely on notaries to know their responsibilities and carry out their duties properly. To allow one misstroke of the pen by one official to negate the will of the people seems a dangerous allocation of accidental power. But the strict rules governing the authority of notaries public ensure that our documents and oaths are kosher, and they are part of the rule of law.

What should happen to petitions that are spoiled solely by an error of the notary public? That's a hard question, well worth the opinion of a judge... or maybe five.

Neverendum Referendum: South Dakota, Brookings, Howard Vote!

My neighbors on Lake Herman may have no desire for an election, but the rest of South Dakota is vote-happy.

1. All of us South Dakotans will get to vote next year on the bar-restaurant smoking ban. Secretary Nelson's 5% random sample indicates that 18,320 of the 25,000 signatures gathered are probably valid, and that's plenty for a vote. Lobbyist and petition drive coordinator Larry Mann says he's [Steve Young's words] "disappointed that the number of valid signatures wasn't higher." 73% is a surprisingly low success rate, but Larry, you had bar and casino owners gathering signatures: should we be surprised that one out of four signers were too drunk to scribble the right address or recall that they aren't registered to vote?
   
2. Brookings County residents will have the pleasure of voting on August 11 on the county's plan to buy and demolish a couple houses in the Brookings Historic District.
3. Our neighbors in Howard have rustled up a vote for themselves on August 18. The matter at hand: two city resolutions vacating portions of Farmers Avenue and an alley. Back on June 8, 50 people attended a Howard City Commission meeting to discuss the actions, which would allow the Rural Learning Center to move forward with its plans for the big downtown learning and demonstration center. Howard's elected leaders approved the vacations. 33 signatures would have been enough to refer the matter; 75 Howardians signed to say, "Hold on, let's vote!" Obviously I hope Howard will vote a big yes for the vacations (wait, do the petitioners want a staycation?) and let this visionary project go forward. But whichever way the vote goes, I'm pleased to see the community have the chance to buy in or boot it out.
   

Brookings Petitioners Seek Referendum on County Parking

...can't we just park on the street... or ride our bikes to the courthouse?

Speaking local democracy, the Brookings Register (which still can't figure out how to properly format Web articles) reports that Brookings residents Gloria Kloster and Nancy Flynn are circulating petitions to refer to a public vote the decision by Brookings County to buy two houses on Fourth Street and probably bulldoze them for parking lots.

I say probably, because, as reported by Dakota War College last month, Brookings County has been formulating its plans for the lots in the Brookings Historic District under the guise of a "task force" which has been conducting closed meetings. Even fellow commissioner Dennis Falken has grumbled a little about the task force's secret operations.

The petitioners could face a legal challenge, as there is some question about whether the county's action is legislative (referrable! :-) ) or administrative (not referrable :-( ). Deputy state's attorney Mark Kratochvil and even Commission Chair Don larson seem to feel residents can refer this decision, though we'll see if they still sing that tune if the petitions come in. The bigger challenge is to beat the clock: municipal referendum petitions need to be submitted within 20 days of the decision's publication. The purchase decision hit the Brookings paper May 28; petitions with at least 969 valid signatures are therefore due at the Brookings courthouse by the close of business this Wednesday, June 17. Better hustle, ladies!

Responding to the petition drive, Commissioner Larson demonstrates an amusing inability to answer the question:

I think [the purchase is] a sound decision. My question would be, if it's bad for the county to be proactive , why aren't these citizens taking out the same petitions against the city and the university for their expansion? What's the difference between the two? What's the difference with the county being proactive and the city being proactive? [quoted by Ryan Woodard, "Citizens Challenge Commission Decision," Brookings Register, 2009.06.15]

Who says locals can't spin? Commissioner Larson goes for the classic line of painting his opponents as enemies of progress. But we don't hear the petitioners saying it's bad to be "proactive". They're saying it's bad to rip up homes in the historic district and replace them with parking lots. They're also saying that it's bad to conduct public business, proactive or otherwise, in secret meetings. (Transparency, transparency, transparency, Commissioner Larson!)

You know me: I'm all about public conversation, open meetings, and citizens taking political action. I hope the neighbors get their thousand signatures by Wednesday (don't let the rain stop you!), and I hope Brookings citizens get a vote on the use of their money and their historic neighborhood.

Nelson Throws out Eminent Domain Referral; SB 174 Stands

Jeremiah M. Murphy of the Protect Private Property organization sends bad news for property rights: Secretary of State Chris Nelson has determined that the petitions submitted last week to refer Senate Bill 174 to a public vote did not contain enough valid signatures. Therefore, the law takes effect July 1, giving the DM&E and railroad companies more power to take your land through eminent domain.

Well, if they have this extra power, it would sure be nice of the railroads to start using it for a public purpose, like building some commuter rail across the state....

Eminent Domain Referral Petitions Filed in Time to Join Busy November Ballot

Whew—that was darned close:

Jeremiah M. Murphy of Protect Private Property sends out a press release announcing his group has collected 19,000 signatures to refer South Dakota Senate Bill 174 to a public vote this November. The press release says the PPP folks submitted their petitions to Secretary of State Chris Nelson today, June 16. State law gives citizens 90 days after the end of the Legislative session to file their petitions. The Legislature adjourned on March 17. Day 90 fell on Sunday, so the PPP folks evidently got until the next business day, today, to file.

SB 174, as you may recall, is a special treat for the DM&E and other railroads who don't want to go through the same due process as other entities trying to take your land for their profit. Assuming at least 16,776 of the petition signatures pass muster with Secretary Nelson, the referral of SB 174 will join four constitutional amendments and three initiated measures on our action-packed November ballot:

• Constitutional Amendment G - Repeal certain reimbursement restrictions for travel by legislators to and from a legislative session. View full text of HJR1003.
• Constitutional Amendment H - Repeal certain provisions of the State Constitution relating to corporations. View full text of HJR1001.
• Constitutional Amendment I - Provide for a maximum of forty legislative days each year. View full text of HJR1004.
• Constitutional Amendment J - Eliminate term limits for legislators. View full text of SJR1.
• Initiated Measure 9 - South Dakota Small Investors Protection Act. View full text of petition.
• Initiated Measure 10 - South Dakota Open and Clean Government Act. View full text of petition.
• Initiated Measure 11 - Regulate the performance of certain abortions, to reinstate the prohibition against certain acts causing the termination of the life of an unborn human being and to prescribe a penalty therefore. View full text of petition.

Thanks to the Secretary of State's office for having the above text and links available online!

Add all the state legislative races in which the Dems are ready to wage war to retake the Senate and maybe even the House (we're all thinking 2010 and redistricting), and you have the makings of another really exciting election season. Start reading up now, folks! We've got a lot to decide!

Can We Refer TIF to Public Vote?

...such was the question posed to me by a reader this afternoon. I couldn't answer for sure, so I did some looking. (Remember, I'm not a lawyer, I just like finding stuff out. My legal advice is purely unofficial; your mileage may vary.)

Yes, it appears citizens can refer a Tax Increment Finance district resolution by their city to a public vote. Folks in Aberdeen did it in 2007: after opponents got the issue on the ballot, voters turned out 2-1 in favor of a government handout for Northern Beef Packers.

But if you want to refer Madison's TIF to a public vote, you'd better hustle. The city commission passed the updated TIF resolution on May 19. SDCL 9-20-6 says you have twenty days after the publication of an ordinance to file petitions to refer it to a public vote. I haven't been tracking the Legals in the Madison Daily Leader as closely as I ought, but I would imagine it's been in there already.

Of course, this assumes any Madison residents are cheesed off enough about the TIF to go stirring up trouble with petitions and public conversation and voting. I make no such presumption. I'm just answering a reader's question....