Editorial

Big Brother is doing more than watching

The Gray Town Council's decision that Gray should ban new gravel pits and severely limit existing pits brought a clamorous response Tuesday night at the Council meeting. As well it should.

Deciding to ban a business from the city limits is treading on thin ice legally and morally, as the lengthy and vociferous discussion held on the subject Tuesday night indicated. There are really three issues here.

The first is that Gray Councilors want to follow guidelines delineated in the newly adopted updated Comprehensive Plan. It is good to have a guideline for growth and a vision for the future. But to outright ban an existing business because of the suggestion made in the Plan, with no other clear reason, is poor visioning. I agree with the owners who said that the practice is discriminatory, and that there are already regulations in place locally and with the Department of Environmental Protection that work to appropriately monitor the industry.

The second issue is a larger one that I have been watching for several years. Gray has an increasing penchant for policy, regulation, and excessively complicated ordinances. The Stimson Hall Rental policy is a new policy that asks individuals and organizations to pony up large amounts of insurance and places other limits on the building's use. Many church groups, non-profits, and individuals now cannot or will not use the building.

The Road Standards ordinance now includes standards that force developers to create roads in their developments that are equal to municipal roads, even if the road is private. Many developers as a result cannot or will not do business in the town of Gray.

The Sidewalk Standards Ordinance: ditto as above.

The Mass Gathering Ordinance limits assembly on private property to less than 500 people. Above 500, you now need a permit, large insurance polity, and to shell out for many municipal services such as code enforcement, police protection, and public safety. And now the limits on gravel pits, with many owners already refusing to do business in Gray.

These examples illustrate a trend toward limitation on public assembly and property rights.

The third issue is that Gray has a process for ordinance review and for public interaction during the review process. These ordinances and policies affect people's livelihoods and lives. Therefore, State and local rules exist for public notification and input. The pattern lately has been to go through the due process, accept input, review committee work, and seek public participation in good faith. The draft is then sent to Council for adoption.

Therein lies the mysterious gap in which the draft is substantively changed in some way, and then reappears for enactment, much to everyone's surprise. Where does the new language come from? How and when is it placed in the drafts? Why don't the Councilors themselves participate in the committee process to add their comments during the appropriate time?

As Councilor Gary Foster said Tuesday night, "these people have been sucker-punched." I am not advocating that the Council rubber-stamp all committee work, but to add drastic language at the last minute outside of the public process is insulting to all those who worked in good faith.

And the Council wonders, sincerely, why more people don't participate.