Several weeks ago, there was a reasonably cordial exchange between David Foster, who opposes zoning, and Mika Milburn, who supports it. County Commissioner Mika made a very good point about zoning that is worth considering:

I understand your fear, but I have fear as well that bourbon county will some day be primarily owned by out of state or even out of county people that do not care nor respect our county and the people that call it home, so many counties in Kansas are zoned and it did not kill them! Although I disagree with you that this will kill our county David I certainly respect your opinion and agree with you on many other things.

At a high level, I believe Mika is saying that there is a way to do zoning that is good for the long-term interests of Bourbon County. This is a perfectly reasonable position, and I completely agree with her. Zoning done perfectly and administered perfectly could potentially have some benefits for the county over not being zoned.

However, we shouldn’t be comparing a utopian execution of zoning with no-zoning. We should be comparing the zoning we will actually get with the lack of county zoning we have today. What makes it difficult is that it is hard to predict exactly what we will get, and it is impossible to say how it will actually be used by current and future commissioners. So, while Mika may be optimistic about her goals for zoning from the commission she sits on, residents should be weighing the risks and rewards of zoning under both the current and future commissioners. It is less of a question of whether good things could come from the decisions made by the best commissioners and more a question of the harm that might result under the worst commissioners in the future. People will evaluate these risks in different ways and will likely come to different conclusions.

So that is thinking about the way zoning might be administered in the future, but what about the way it is enacted today? In other words, what type of zoning are we likely to actually get? Well, let’s look at the current zoning advisory board. This board consists of Brian Wade, Christine Farbo, Brian Ashworth II, James L. Banworth Jr., Mary Pemberton, Jason Yaunt, Amanda Spicer, Pete Owensby, and Mike Houston. They are meeting in the commission room at the courthouse on Thursdays at 5 p.m. starting April 17th and running for 5 weeks. Hop on over to the county’s YouTube channel where all the county meetings are streamed and archived, to see how the process is going.  What’s that? You say you can’t find any of the meetings? Are you sure you looked hard enough? Does that seem strange?

Even though the advisory board meetings under previous commissioners were streamed, the current commissioners have inexplicably broken with this tradition and made the peculiar decision to leave the streaming turned off for these meetings. It isn’t just past commissions that make these types of meetings accessible to the public. A similar advisory board at the city streams their meetings in order to maintain transparency. The commissioners have also decided to forgo taking minutes at the meetings, so there is no official record of what is discussed.

Multiple requests by citizens asking the commissioners to stream these meetings have been denied. In a recent poll, every participating voter except one asked that the meetings be streamed. The sole exception was a vote by Commissioner Beerbower, who voted that the meetings should not be streamed.

Since the evidence suggests that the commissioners think their goals are better served by making these advisory meetings less transparent to the broad population than what has been done in the past, how likely is it that those goals are in the best interest of the broad population of Bourbon County?

That isn’t a rhetorical question. Apparently, Mika feels confident that this process will produce zoning that will be used in a way that will be better than no zoning in the county. This isn’t an unreasonable position, and I’m sure she is not alone. Others may see the downsides of zoning outweighing any potential benefits. The important thing is to look at the process, ask yourself the above question, and then let your commissioner know what you think.

Mark Shead

Additional note: After the meeting ended on Wednesday, Brian Wade indicated that he was unhappy with this piece because it wasn’t the truth. He was walking out the door, so I may not have caught everything, but it seemed he felt that the decision to not make the meetings available in the way that past commissioners have done with past advisory commission meetings was made by the advisory committee, not the commissioners. I would suggest that, since the advisory committee is appointed and directed by the commissioners, the decision is ultimately that of the commissioners, and if the commissioners wanted to make sure the meeting was conducted with the same level of transparency as similar meetings, they could have done so. However, it is worth noting that Mr. Wade felt the committee had the option to make the meetings accessible but chose not to. He mentioned several times that he didn’t want people to be able to see the meetings unless they came in person.