Tonight Monday Sept 30 – 6:00 pm – Washington County Courthouse
Washington County Judge Patrick Deakin has decided to push through zoning ordinances that allow him to decide the fate of thousands of parcels of land with less oversight or input from either property owners or Quorum Court Justices.
Read this concerned and passionate analysis from Cecilliee Duncan, an affected Washington County citizen, to see what that means, and what it may mean for you.
Tonight the County Services Committee could be pressured to adopt his scheme unless there’s a public presence watching him. If you are available please come at 6:00.
Tell the Washington County JPs to Vote No on the “Freedom and Property Preservation Act”
An Open Letter to the Voters and Taxpayers of Washington County,
And to the County JPs, County Judge, and others; by a Washington County resident
Observations on the Quorum Court Meeting on 9/19 regarding the Freedom and Property Preservation Act of Washington County
Many of us have lived in the county for generations. Many of us have lived here a lifetime. We are aware of the type of interest our lands garner. We’ve seen it in neighboring counties. Last year the Runway Group tried to reclassify the Buffalo River from a National River to a National Park or Preserve and then refused to send a representative to the Town Hall the city of Jasper held.(Which was incredibly well attended, by the way) This would have allowed development and even mineral extraction within the boundaries of the Buffalo River. They’ve since pulled back on that idea. We know from our neighbors in counties like Newton, that they are receiving 5-7 calls per month from private equity groups and LLCs attempting to acquire their land. (They’re not selling) We all feel the pressure from developers. Some of us are descendants of the original settlers of this country and our memories stretch back lifetimes. Some of us are still using civil war era tools in our day to day lives. We have a particular way of life and despite our differences, we share common values.
In the Quorum Court Meeting on 09/19 Judge Deakins made the statement that he is trying to shepherd this process. He relocated to the area in 2009. This makes him very young to the area in comparison to those he seeks to hold influence over.
Judge Deakins stated he wants to keep large corporations out of the county and that his intent is to create a marketplace. How does opening up hundreds of thousands of acres (3277 parcels of land) along both sides of every major highway running through the county for commercial development create a marketplace where small businesses would be able to compete with private equity and large corporations?
Judge Deakins has stated his intent clearly. He wants to welcome in anyone who can meet what he has described as “minimal standards”. We do not live in an area that supports minimal standards. We live in an area that requires incredibly high standards. Our biodiversity, wildlife, waterways, and ecology require careful consideration. I’m unwilling to support legislation that is written for minimal standards.
The first mandate for being a good shepherd is to be able to build trust with the flock. But in my conversations with many voters and taxpayers in the county, Judge Deakins does not appear to have the trust of the voters and taxpayers and neither do many of the Quorum Court Justices of the Peace. Their intention to put this legislation up for a vote while we are in the most contentious election cycle in our nation’s history has unsettled all of us during a highly sensitive time. It doesn’t feel like good shepherding to me.
Further, during Quorum Court on 9/19, JP Ecke (district 6) asked our county planner, Sam Ata, if farmers would still be able to sell hay under the proposed legislation. The nature of her question tells me she doesn’t understand the impact the proposed legislation would have on her constituents. Voting on something like this without a thorough understanding of how it will impact the voters and taxpayers of Washington County is irresponsible.
Robert Dennis JP for District 10 let us know that he is getting calls from lawyers and realtors all day long who are so excited about this. We all know lawyers and realtors see an opportunity to make a fortune. JP Robert Dennis presented to Quorum Court on 9/19 that he is eager to see this done. His interests do not appear to be aligned with the voters and taxpayers of Washington County but to large real estate organizations and law firms as he presented to the Quorum Court in his comments on 09/19.
There are JPs who are bringing up important and prudent considerations. JP Butch Pond (dist 15) voiced his concerns over how development may impact flooding on county roads observing specific roads and bridges where this never used to be an issue, but is now. He was voicing the concerns of his constituents (which are also the constituents of Judge Deakins) in District 15 about the power grid issues, and he was making remarks about important watersheds. He was speaking with a lived knowledge of these lands. And I was disappointed that Judge Deakins didn’t respond to any of his concerns in a meaningful way. Judge Deakins simply commented to Butch Pond that he wanted people to have less freedom. Butch Pond was speaking for the voters and taxpayers of Washington County. And what he was relaying was incredibly important and continues to be. His words deserve to be met with a great deal of respect. I don’t feel that Judge Deakins listened deeply to the words of Butch Pond and I’m concerned that what I observe to be a lack of regard would carry over into his larger dealings with the voters and taxpayers of Washington County.
The county roads are the responsibility of our County Judge to maintain. Any poor drainage that impacts flooding on the roadways is going to come to bare at the expense of the county. These considerations are vital as are the impacts development will have on watersheds, the power grid, water quality, quality of life, and the list goes on and on and on.
The proposed legislation would make the County Judge the final arbiter of development decisions in the county and allow him to move a large part of the decisions about development out of the hands of elected officials and into the hands of hand selected appointees. His disposition towards Butch Pond felt dismissive, not only to Butch Pond, but to the voters and taxpayers in Washington County. And regrettably, I feel we would be met with the same sense of dismissiveness over our concerns about the lands we have called home for generations. It doesn’t feel like good shepherding.
Further, the proposed legislation seems to grant unequal representation under the law for voters and taxpayers living within the territorial jurisdiction of municipalities and those living in unincorporated areas. Voters and taxpayers living within the territorial jurisdictions of municipalities would have the ability to interact with their city governments to adopt ordinances that may be stricter than what the county has proposed. They would have the ability to self-represent and self-govern. Voters and taxpayers living in unincorporated areas do not appear to be given the same opportunity for self-representation and self-government with the *minimal standards* the county has set forth being the default. This is on page 10 of the proposed legislation in Article 4: Land Development in the Unincorporated Areas of Washington County Arkansas. The act that grants authority to the county to develop unincorporated areas is ACT 422 of 1977.
There are several other acts cited in the proposed legislation. These acts need to be included as attachments to the proposed legislation so that voters and taxpayers in the county can examine them, ask questions about them, and be involved in changes that need to be made. This proposed legislation doesn’t seem to grant people more freedom. It seems to shrink the freedom they already enjoy. It shrinks the time frame voters and taxpayers have to respond to proposed development in their area. It shrinks their ability to engage with the process of governance and in certain cases appears to disenfranchise them entirely. If any legislation goes through at the county level on rezoning, expanding the rights of property owners rather than shrinking them needs to be the first order of business. This proposed legislation does the opposite.
I also know from my brief glance at ACT 422 of 1977 that 3.4 states “The board, its members, officers, and employees, in the performance of their functions, may enter upon any land to make necessary inspections.” This seems vague to me and unsettling in just how many people it is vesting with the authority to enter our lands. We need more clarity here.
We are unclear what type of outreach each of the JPs has undertaken in their jurisdictions to engage the voters and taxpayers of Washington County in relationship building and education around the proposed legislation. Most voters and taxpayers I have spoken to in the county do not even know this is happening. The general consensus among us is that this feels invasive, inappropriately timed, overwhelming, and in poor faith. This consensus extends beyond political affiliation. Also, the county JPs in some instances do not have email addresses that can send emails. The GIS map link on the county website is down. This is a vital piece of transparency because it would allow voters and taxpayers in the county to look up their property and see what potential rezoning may be happening around them. The county JPs don’t have a copy of the final proposed legislation. (Unless it has been sent after my writing of this.) At this late hour, these types of technical issues and lack of transparency are enough reasons to table any prospect of having a conversation around this legislation until the county technical resources are in good working order FIRST and until we know collectively that there have been several town halls in each of the municipalities and the unincorporated areas of the county giving voters and taxpayers and opportunity to be involved with this process, ask questions, and request changes.
We’ve seen the problems the city of Fayetteville and other areas are experiencing with their new builds. We hear that what is going up in the city is often barely built to code. We know that the City Council of Fayetteville is embattled on housing. I’ve personally spoken with voters and taxpayers of Washington County that live in Fayetteville who have purchased brand new homes only to have to redo so much of what was done. Putting this type of expense on new voters and taxpayers moving to the county is unacceptable. We’ve seen the track home neighborhoods that, in my opinion, are absolutely artless in their creation. They take down every tree across the acres of land they inhabit. They put down monocrop grasses that need to be fed with chemical fertilizers, guzzle already precious water, and whose roots are so shallow they offer no protection from erosion. With the flooding our area can experience, I’m unwilling to allow this to go unaddressed in any development plans. I’m unwilling to allow the water quality and wildlife to be taxed by runoff of chemical fertilizers and soil erosion.
We’ve seen the build to rent neighborhoods going up in Fayetteville, Prairie Grove, and other areas. These neighborhoods will be bought and sold between private equity groups. The profits are made on the buy and sells. We see it with retirement and student housing as well. A new company comes in and the rents double. We have no way of knowing where those rents are going. The rents collected there do not recirculate amongst us, but are siphoned off to outside interests.
It’s the same with the hospitality industry. There is a lot of interest in that realm in our area because of its natural beauty. They’ll come in and tell us they are going to create jobs. But they’ll be part time and the pay will be mediocre. Meanwhile, folks with deep pockets will come in and build their 5th vacation home. It will be empty most of the time, presenting a massive drain to collective resources and overtake the assessed values of neighboring properties, increasing taxes. These areas become of ghostly spirit with a sea of changing faces. There is no community in these places. The suicide rates are sky high in tourist towns. And again, most of the money spent in tourist towns does not circulate within the local economy. It goes to major car rental companies, hotel chains, or commercial real estate investors with large portfolios of AirBnb properties. It is an extractive economy. The locals that serve those types of economy struggle to afford housing. Friends working in tourist towns often lived out of their vehicle while working 3-4 part time jobs. We don’t want that here.
Beaver Lake is already stressed trying to keep up with the influx of new people coming into the county. It’s true my family’s well ran dry due to development around us. If the county lands are already struggling to keep up with the water and energy use of those that live here, what is the wisdom of allowing tens/hundreds of thousands of new residents to move out to the county? What is the wisdom of allowing large development? What type of studies have been done and what type of multi-year plan has been put into place? And where is the transparency around such things? The voters and taxpayers of Washington County deserve to know the answers to these questions amongst many others.
On 09/19 our Quorum Court and Judge Deakins attempted to put the minds of the voters and taxpayers of Washington County at ease by telling us no new industrial zones were being created. But in the proposed legislation on page 41 (pg 45 if you are looking at it in PDF) Under 18.) Large Scale Development Standards section a(ii) we can see that industrial activities such as mining, quarrying, excavating to include dirt pits, asphalt plants, concrete and cement plants have simply been redefined as commercial and would be allowed. These activities could start before having to meet any provisions set forth in the legislation with a surety bond, guaranteed letter of credit, etc. Am I understanding that these activities would be able to begin immediately?
Telling the voters and taxpayers of Washington County that no new industrial zones will be created while setting forth in the proposed legislation the redefinition of what most of us would consider industrial activity to commercial activity is … pardon my confusion … but there is a great lack of clarity around this issue. I’m unwilling to allow that lack of clarity to persist. If activity like mining, quarrying, gravel pits, dirt pits, etc … is going to be allowed, the voters and taxpayers deserve to know. What studies have been done on this type of activity? How many quarries, mines, and dirt pits would be allowed?
What type of dust palliatives would be applied? Synthetic polymer emulsions? Petroleum based products? Magnesium Chloride? Lingin Sulfonate? We need so much clarity around this issue. The voters and taxpayers have a lot of unanswered questions around this.
Judge Deakins is on the bench until 2026. It is my feeling after observing Quorum Court on 09/19 based on the comments of the JPs themselves, that there is not enough mutually held understanding of the legislation nor its impact to voters and taxpayers of Washington County to move it forward under the current administration of the Quorum Court. Nor will there be amongst the new JPs. Plus, new JPs will need to take on the mantle of engaging their constituents through town halls, outreach, and dialogue around proposed zoning changes. I fully anticipate that this conversation will take the full two years of the remainder of Judge Deakin’s term. Judge Deakins will maintain his position until 2026. He has these years now to amend his own relationship to how he shepherds this region and he has a powerful opportunity NOW to build trust, good faith, and community with the voters and taxpayers of Washington County by ceasing his efforts to put this through.
Judge Deakins himself reflected in Quorum Court on 09/19 that those in his circle say he has one of the toughest jobs being the county judge in a rural county trying to go urban. Who said that’s what we’re trying to do? Nobody asked us!!! But it is true, he doesn’t have an easy job and has his work cut out for him. All the more reason why decisions about development shouldn’t fall onto the shoulders of one man. It leaves him too vulnerable to undue influence and has him shouldering the entire burden of the emotional responses of the voters and taxpayers of the county regarding development decisions that may not be popular. It’s too much for one man alone to bear. That’s why we need a different decision making process for development in the county that needs to include elected officials who build active, engaged, healthy, and respectful connections and relationships to the voters and taxpayers who live in the county. Most importantly, the voters and taxpayers of the county deserve a broad opportunity to hold influence on decisions affecting them. Any legislation moving forward needs to expand their rights, not reduce them.
Good decision making is a time intensive process. It requires collaboration, deliberation, and transparency and consensus building across a broad range of viewpoints. That process is going to take years. The strife our nation currently faces only adds to the time required for such things. Now is not the time for the county as a whole to make incredibly hasty broad stroke decisions where there is a lot of emotion and tension. The current emotional climate does not support this legislation.
We only get ONE opportunity to talk about how the county is developed and to hold influence over the process. That includes the county JPs, the county judge, and the voters and taxpayers of Washington County. Once these lands are gone to commercial development, they will NEVER return to agricultural use. This alone needs to give all of us great pause. We are talking about changes that will forever alter our way of life, the landscape, and what these lands can hold. This deserves so much consideration. Truth be told, I’m opposed to developing the county at all. It is a haven to even those living in the larger metropolitan areas. It gives them an opportunity to get away from a hectic pace and into languid drives. I believe leaving it alone serves many functions, including upholding the collective nervous system by giving people quiet places of reflection. It also creates a buffer between our water supply and pollution. And it keeps crowds out of delicate bird habitat and wildlife areas.The prospect of opening such a wide swath of the county to development all at once is unimaginable.
Some folks want to come in and use words like “Freedom” and “Preservation” to describe its opposite. We live out in the county because we don’t want to live around large developments. We are out in the county because our ancestors settled this land and we’ve been here ever since. Here, we have all the freedom we need.
If the intention is to keep large corporations and private equity out of the county, then specific language in the legislation needs to speak to that point explicitly and the voters and taxpayers living in the county need to be in the driver’s seat when it comes to exactly what they are willing to allow and what they are not willing to allow in the county.
With those thoughts, I will close with some scripture that speaks to the subject matter of shepherding.
1 Peter 5:1-14 So I exhort the elders among you, as a fellow elder and a witness of the sufferings of Christ, as well as a partaker in the glory that is going to be revealed: shepherd the flock of God that is among you, exercising oversight, not under compulsion, but willingly, as God would have you; not for shameful gain, but eagerly; not domineering over those in your charge, but being examples to the flock. And when the chief Shepherd appears, you will receive the unfading crown of glory. Likewise, you who are younger, be subject to the elders. Clothe yourselves, all of you, with humility toward one another, for “God opposes the proud but gives grace to the humble.” …
The following are important links. The first is the proposed legislation. The two canva links are for ACT 422 of 1977 and ACT 186 of 1957, I have barely had a chance to glance at the two ACTS and I am still sorting out the Freedom and Property Preservation Act itself.