BEE-L Archives

Informed Discussion of Beekeeping Issues and Bee Biology

BEE-L@COMMUNITY.LSOFT.COM

Options: Use Monospaced Font
Show Text Part by Default
Show All Mail Headers

Message: [<< First] [< Prev] [Next >] [Last >>]
Topic: [<< First] [< Prev] [Next >] [Last >>]
Author: [<< First] [< Prev] [Next >] [Last >>]

Print Reply
Subject:
From:
Bill Truesdell <[log in to unmask]>
Reply To:
Informed Discussion of Beekeeping Issues and Bee Biology <[log in to unmask]>
Date:
Tue, 18 Mar 2003 08:48:06 -0500
Content-Type:
text/plain
Parts/Attachments:
text/plain (95 lines)
James Fischer wrote:

> Bill sits (or sat) on a zoning board in Maine, so he may know
> differently, but I have not heard of any case in the USA where
> beekeeping was restricted in an area zoned "agricultural".
> The problems appear to be in areas within municipal limits and
> in adjacent suburban areas zoned "residential".

Still am Chairman.

Uses can be restricted in any zone. Each zone has its permitted uses and
they can be broad or restrictive. My point was not that beekeeping has
been restricted in an agricultural zone but that it can be.
For example, an area may be zoned for residential but certain types of
residences may not be allowed (ie. trailers, modular homes, slab
foundations, too high buildings, apartment houses, etc.). The area I am
in is zoned rural. Agriculture is allowed but pig and poultry farming is
not. Cows and horses are OK. (Give me the rational for that.)

> Given the above, the trick to "urban/suburban beekeeping" appears
> to be to avoid being perceived as "a problem" in the first place.

The great truth of most zoning laws.

> In the few "zoning issues" that have cropped up in our local
> community since "zoning" was adopted, there was an early
> and consistent pattern of clumsy arrogance born of ignorance.

One problem I found when I first came to the Board was they were not
following the law but doing what they thought was "right". Had anyone
taken us to court, we would have lost.
The key here is that the Zoning Board is a "quasi judicial" body and as
such must follow the law and not what they think is right. If a Board is
doing its job correctly, it is merely upholding the law and will seldom
be overturned. The law may be dumb or uninformed, but that is not the
problem of the Board.

>
> In the case of bees, one would expect that an agricultural extension
> representative or professor of entomology could be asked to review
> statements and separate fact from fiction.

Absolutely. Bring experts whenever you can.

>>The way to win beekeeping battles is more with public opinion and large
>>crowds at the meeting where such laws are put forward. Politicians and
>>Board members listen to groups but not to the solitary beekeeper.
>
> Sad that Maine is still governed by "mob-ocracy".
> How often do the mobs roam the streets?  :)

A "mob" is needed in the making of the law rather than its enforcement.
Here is where the expert can have great effect.
A board is different. We listen to everyone who comes to a meeting but
have to enforce the zoning law, even if we disagree with it and even if
there is a large crowd. Several times the Board considered the law bad.
I publicly advised the applicants to see their local rep and get the law
changed, since the law was stupid for that situation, too broad and its
consequences were never thought out.

> Sure, a "mob" is great, but only if you are smart enough to convince
> the media to show up and report on the mob's opposition.

I have worked with the media on many occasions to fight a bad ordinance.
They love a good fight. But you had best be right and truthful.

> In the USA, the 5th Amendment to the Constitution prohibits the
> government from "taking private property" without "just compensation".
> There is a substantial body of case law that have defined restrictions
> on land use as a "taking", subject to the control of 5th Amendment.
> While beekeeping is invariably a "hobby" in the suburbs, there is always
> a "loss of income" aspect to any restriction of beekeeping,

Loss of income is not "taking". The land has to be made worthless or
nearly so and unsellable. It is a very difficult thing to prove. There
are too many cases where laws took uses from a landowner and dropped the
land's resale value. But since the land could still be used in other
ways, or restricted in the current use, it could be sold, albeit at a
loss, so is not taking. We run into this often. It is the foundation for
granting or not granting variances.


Zoning laws and the competence of Boards vary from place to place and
also vary in time. I am blessed with a competent Board.

But the key is not convincing a Board, it is keeping the law off the
books in the first place.

Bill Truesdell
Bath, Maine

::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::
-- Visit www.honeybeeworld.com/BEE-L for rules, FAQ and  other info ---
::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::

ATOM RSS1 RSS2