In a political campaign, you can tell when a candidate doesn't have enough good things to say about himself. He just attacks his opponent. And if he can't find enough bad things to say about his opponent, he just attacks anyone. Facts take a back seat to rhetoric. The most effective statement is the one that scares the most people. Vic Stevens and his Richland Citizens Alliance supporters are Exhibit A.
Stevens is running for Richland supervisor against Craig Staats. You wouldn't know it from the campaign blab, which criticizes everyone in the township administration (except political ally Mike Zowniriw).
Actually, Stevens has copied his campaign almost word-for-word from what Zowniriw, and the RCA, used two years ago. It wasn't true then, it isn't true now, but voters fell for it once because they didn't understand. Look what we got. Hopefully Richland citizens learned their lesson. Understand the facts. Don't fall for the rhetoric.
The deception begins on Stevens' website: a "Wasteful Spending Clock", which purportedly "documents" the cost of township lawsuits. It omits a few rather important details.
Stevens criticizes Richland (not Staats) for spending taxpayer dollars to defend a suit brought by former employee Jeff Stump. The fact is, Richland won the case, and avoided having to pay any damages. Apparently Stevens would have caved in and settled. He seems much more interested in fighting the supervisors than in fighting for taxpayer dollars.
And, even more unethical is Stevens' rant against defending a suit brought by Patrick Murphy. In the interest of fairness and honesty, Stevens should have disclosed that Murphy is a major player in his campaign, and is also the registrant, and administrator, of his website.
If Richland didn't defend the suit, the big winner would be - Patrick Murphy! Can you say conflict of interest? Stevens would apparently just hand over your tax dollars to his numero uno supporter. Now that is wasteful spending. Is this how you want your township run?
The centerpiece of Stevens' campaign is the notion that the area is overdeveloped because supervisors (again, not Staats) have ignored the zoning code, and granted too many waivers to developers. It is a great political statement. "Ignoring the zoning code" sounds bad, and "granting too many waivers" sounds worse. But the political statement, intended to scare voters, is untrue, and just plain deceptive.
In fact, anyone who claims that "enforcing existing zoning laws" and "limiting waivers" is the way to control development (or even possible ), just doesn't understand what zoning and waivers are all about. Stevens and the RCA hope you don't, either.
To begin with, municipalities are learning that zoning codes do not give them enough authority to limit sprawl. Not just Richland - look around at any community. Codes do the basic job of keeping the houses away from the factories, but courts have consistently interpreted them in favor of the builders and landowners. Real control will only occur with new solutions (read on). Stevens and the RCA are 20 years behind.
Back in 2003, Zowniriw made a big deal out of the seemingly large number of waivers granted by the township, and tried to make it appear that these were the cause of overdevelopment. Yet after taking office, he has voted for virtually all of the waivers before the board . Because he discovered that they usually involve details that are meaningless to the overall project. Like not showing certain features or notes on a plan, or not widening sections of existing roads when there are no plans to widen the remainder.
Richland's zoning ordinance is almost 200 pages long, detailing 88 potential uses and 11 zoning classifications, yet it was never designed to be "the solution" to all zoning issues.
Why? Because it is not a "rule book", where you just turn to the right page to find the answer. Think of it as a Constitution, or Bible. It gives general guidelines to follow , but leaves it up to the towns, courts, and people to add the details. No ordinance could possibly cover every contingency. It is the "suit off the rack", which must then be custom tailored to the user. In fact, the law specifically provides for variances and waivers because ordinances are drawn so broadly.
Until the courts change their minds, developers hold all the cards. It is the job of the township to use the zoning code as a tool to make the best deal for all residents, not just one group's own street or neighborhood (which has been the RCA's trademark).
Keep in mind that it was RCA members who caused the development problems in Richland, stemming from when they controlled the Planning Commission in the 1990's. Their self-serving Township Comprehensive Plan kept new construction away from their own homes, but failed to coordinate with the water or sewer plans, allowing developers a legal claim to build in any of those areas.
Ironically, Staats has much more experience than Stevens in seeing zoning's shortcomings, having been on the Planning Commission, Chairman of the Preservation Board, and president of his homeowners association. Staats' proposal, which coordinates the water, sewer, and comprehensive plans, is already being implemented by township engineers. It will, somewhat belatedly, make up for the RCA mistakes, and is the type of alternative to zoning that is needed today.
If you really want to be scared, imagine what Richland will be like if Vic Stevens, and the RCA, win the election, and there are two Mike Zowniriws on the board. Check your ethics at the door.
Be afraid. Be very afraid.