Why does a new By-law frighten property owners?

This is a continuing topic about the Rural Zoning By-law Consolidation project that the City of Kawartha Lakes initiated in 2019 and which has caught the attention of rural property owners.

Concerning 380 pages of words, charts and figures…

I asked ChatGPT:

“Can language be used as an instrument of oppression?”

The AI bot replied: “Yes, language can be used as an instrument of oppression. According to an article in The Science Survey, language has a dark past of oppression that reveals an abuse of culture and identity with lasting consequences. As the world sailed through the age of exploration, colonizers forcefully brought their own traditions and language with them. This unified their growing empires and established order and control, perpetuating dominance through diction 1.

In addition, The Guardian published an article that highlights how language is part of the machinery of oppression. The article argues that structural racism has a vocabulary and terms like “underlying health conditions” or “suicide by cop” are used to describe black deaths 2.

Next, I asked:

“What is meant by the phrase ‘unintended consequences’ in Economics?”

Reply: “In economics, “unintended consequences” refer to the unexpected outcomes of economic actions or policies. These consequences can be either positive or negative, depending on how they affect the economic decision-makers or society. The law of unintended consequences states that economic policies may have unanticipated effects that distort consumer or producer behaviour. These effects may differ from the original objectives of the policymakers 1.

By-laws: Are they good or bad?

When the City of Kawartha signed an engagement agreement in 2019 with the international consulting corporation WSP to “consolidate, harmonize and modernize” 14 county-level, legacy books of bylaws into a single document, I believe their goal in so doing was honourable. The result published in July 2023 as the “final” Report has been to condense over 1000 paper pages of regulatory language into 380 pages stored on modern digital media.

The “jury will be out” for some time before we know if this undertaking will be a “net good” or a “net bad” after it has been applied to the City’s many property owners by the enforcement administration.

“Consolidate” means to condense into something similar, yet different.

When atmospheric water vapour is condensed by cooling temperatures, it falls to earth as rain. Too much can cause unintended consequences, such as flooding. Does the same principle apply to too many words?

Therein lies my most significant objection to the Rural Zoning By-law Consolidation project and its final Report.

If passed as a new By-law, its subsequent enforcement will likely be problematic to many rural property owners within the City of Kawartha Lakes. The fact that the Report omits any definition, delineation or even acknowledgment of property rights will surely be the root cause of zoning disputes between the property owners and the City’s enforcement bureaucracy.

What is the difference between a bureaucracy and an autocracy?

Can a set of zoning rules embedded in a By-law that awards all authority to the City government be considered a form of autocracy?

ChatGTP says:

“Bureaucracy and autocracy are two different forms of government. Bureaucracy is a form of government made up of officials and administrators working for the government. It is a government body of non-elected officials and an administrative policy-making group. The term ‘bureaucracy’ has its origins in combining the French word bureau – desk or office – with the Greek word kratos – rule or political power. It is often criticized for its difficulty, inefficiency, and obstinacy 123.

On the other hand, autocracy is a form of government in which all the supreme power lies in the hands of an individual. It is a political system in which all the decisions taken for the people and the country lie in the hands of one single person ruling the state. The decisions taken by him are considered supreme and are not subjected to legal restraints. Autocracy is a Greek word which means ‘self-rule’. However, the literal translation of autocracy means a place where one man rules everyone, all by himself. An autocrat decides what is good for the people according to his ideas. He does not take into account any other person’s advice. There is no law, and the voices of the people are unheard. It is considered to be the same as dictatorship, but an autocratic ruler refrains from hurting his people 145.

In summary, bureaucracy is a form of government made up of officials and administrators working for the government, while autocracy is a form of government in which all supreme power lies in the hands of an individual

“Modernize” could mean to “democratize”!

In my reading of the new Rural Zoning By-law proposal, it can be viewed as an instrument of autocratic rule and feel threatening to property owners for the potential unintended consequences that may arise in its future enforcement.

For example, a friend told me yesterday that the bylaws could conceivable be used in the future to generate new revenues by the City by hiring additional enforcement agents who could fine property owners for breaches to the new Bylaws that were legal in the past. It wouldn’t be the first time that a public institution paid for its addition of more staff by justifying it through new “revenue tools” associated with their enforcement duties.

Kathleen Wynne has the infamous Liberal Premier who spoke about the value of “revenue tools” to fund her expansionary goals. I don’t think our Mayor or ward Councillors would be happy about getting a reputation for thinking like Premier Wynne.

Democratize, not autocratize!

In a letter to the City Council, I objected to the Rural Zoning By-law Consolidation final Report in its current form and suggested that ….

“City Council has an excellent opportunity to show that it will stand up for the property rights of the constituents who elected them.”

In essence, I suggested that the By-law be transformed from a book of rules, standards and charts to be strictly enforced, and to become a COMPENDIUM OF BEST PRACTICES that can guide discussions and negotiations between property owners and enforcement officials.

Yes, just like negotiations between public sector labour unions and government employers, professional arbitration specialists (ideally not employed by government institutions to avoid “institutional bias”) can break deadlocks as a last resort.

Defend and protect individual person and property rights (IPPR)

Individual Person and Property Rights must be defined clearly and comprehensively within the official Rural Zoning document as the democratic foundation for the RURAL ZONING COMPENDIUM OF BEST PRACTICES.

This is the only way that a truly democratic relationship between the City and its constituents will ever be achieved.

Canada cannot ever be described as a “civil society” until these rights are finally given their due powers for all Canadians in their relationship with every level of government, including municipal.

The way I see it as an Advocate for Less Government

A civil society has four primary characteristics which were first introduced to Canada’s political culture by Maxime Bernier when he formed the People’s Party of Canada. These values belong to everyone regardless of party affiliation.

The FOUR PRINCIPLES FOR A CIVIL SOCIETY should guide all governing institutions when creating and enforcing rules for society and/or approaches to governing democratically like the one I proposed.

First, citizens must be free to undertake PERSONAL RESPONSIBILITY in all their affairs, to be limited only by situations in which their choices and acts may encroach upon the same rights as others.

Given that our churches and institutions of public Education all serve to condition and prepare every child to grow up to become a responsible adult, society at large has tacitly agreed for many generations that personal responsibility is a worthy goal towards which to aspire for every Canadian citizen.

Second, personal responsibility cannot be undertaken if citizens are not individually free to make informed choices. To the extent that governments create strict rules to be enforced under their exclusive authority, that INDIVIDUAL FREEDOM continually erodes.

Our governing institutions much be reduced and limited in size, cost and scope of legislative authority in order to establish the optimal balance between individual freedom and state control.

Third, rules must be FAIR. All affected parties must meet as “equals” in the application of rules and ‘best practives’ for the benefit of individual citizen as well as their community members.

Too many laws and regulations exist today that benefited one special interest group or another at some point in the past when a public issue arose which spurred partisan lobbyists to take political action. Once passed, any resulting statutes usually remain on the books indefinitely.  As they grow in number and scope of authority, the spirit of autocracy begins to prevail under the supreme powers of “the state”. This trend is unacceptable to any advocate of genuine democracy.

Fourth, unelected public officials and elected politicians expect RESPECT while they hold their positions of authority.

While it may make sense to respect the public office for the powers it wields, respect for its inhabitant must be earned.

For example, I respect the office of the Canadian Prime Minister but not its current inhabitant. I reserve this personal assessment and judgment for every government department head, MP, MPP, Mayor and City Councillor according to their performance and stated objectives.

Will I get a chance to speak to City Council?

Yesterday, I applied to the City of Kawartha Lakes to deliver a deputation to the City Council at its next public meeting. I won’t know if my request will be accepted for at least a few days. This is another example of an autocratic process that is fully under the control and authority of government officials.

Swiss direct democracy.

About ten years ago, I interviewed a Swiss citizen for an IT consulting assignment at a town in France near its border with Switzerland. I asked him about how he, as a Swiss citizen, was able to address and submit topics for public consideration. He replied:

“I will finish drinking my beer in the local pub and then walk across the street to the local canton (municipal) office to speak with our elected representative”.

Direct democracy in action! Wow. Can we have this here!?