The Incredibly High Cost of an Arbitrary "NO".......

Sometimes citizens demand we say NO MORE [fill in the blank] when in actuality it is something that our codes and ordinances permit.  When we say NO to what should be a YES---there often will be a high price to be paid for doing so....as illustrated below.

We make decisions that make people mad.  We make them at nearly every meeting.

Sometimes, there are no easy answers.  One thing that is universally understood is this:  You can never please all the people, all the time.  Nobody can.

So issues come before us that are challenging and there are typically competing interests at stake.  Most of the time we are up against a tough vote, it usually centers on a land use decision the board must make.

So when confronted with doing what appears to be appropriate, what comports with our current land development code, what has been approved by the state, and what has been approved by the planning board and county staff--there really are no options for us to take if we want to be efficient, decisive, follow the law, and be fair to all parties.  We should vote yes when it is obviously a YES decision given all the facts.

But that does not always happen--and there are not always happy endings.

Often there will be an active and vocal minority of citizens present to oppose doing what is proposed, what is right and what comports with the law.  Sometimes these loud voices of an extreme minority opinion can push a vote down the road, delay a project, send it back to the planning board, etc.  Cans can get kicked for months and months--costing petitioners money and time.

Sometimes there's no rational reasoning for the push for a NO.  Often it comes from groups that want no changes in their neighborhoods, or no new growth, or no "XXXX" type of business near them [Fill in the blank].

Sometimes, these voices push so hard that a project that should, by every measure conceivable, be a resounding "YES" turns into a "NO" to mollify a loud and vocally opposed constituency.  So what appears to be a politically expedient, "for the people" decision to say no to something that should have warranted a yes will have consequences, because there is an incredibly high cost of an arbitrary "NO".  Or to put a scientific spin on it-we can channel Isaac Newton--"for every action there is an equal and opposite reaction."

Take for instance the NO vote that was rendered for a legitimate business operation in Escambia County a couple of years back.  The BCC said no for reasons that could not withstand actual legal scrutiny, and the requestor hired an attorney.  He then proceeded to clean our clocks in circuit court where the judge took the highly unusual step in her decision of not simply siding with the plaintiff--but  actually "ordering" the BCC to issue the permit we had previously denied this individual petitioner.

Now, after getting destroyed in court with that ruling--apparently we are still not doing what was ordered by the judge with respect to the permit---and we are about to get pilloried again. (Picture the most vicious, brutal "ground and pound" UFC cagematch beatdown you can imagine......us on the bottom)

Add to this the fact that we have not yet received all of the legal bills and lost revenue claims that we will be paying from the first go round with this individual because we said "no."

Now, unfortunately, it looks like that meter will continue to run; in a letter received this week, a new issue with the judgment and the county's reaction illuminated the fact that the bill is being drawn up and it will soon be coming to us (taxpayers) for payment--complete with new fees if we don't issue the correct permit expeditiously.  from the letter:

"If the permit correction is not made, we will have no choice but to recommend seeking further judicial enforcement of the proper classification of my client's permit. If the County is unwilling to comply with its own code, we will be forced to take legal action to enforce my client's rights, including but not limited to a declaratory action seeking a declaration that the permit issued to my client properly falls under the XXXXXXXXXX classification XXXXXXXXX.

In addition, I note that we already have a substantial damages claim for the delay in the initial permit, to which entitlement exists as a matter of law, caused by the County's previous denial of due process. Further, attempts to deny my client the permit to which they are entitled are added due process violations compounding those violations which have already been adjudicated against the County. The already existing damages and their substantiation are forthcoming and will be submitted for the County's review and payment shortly. Failure to correct the permit at this point will add to those recoverable damages."