Big Governments Take
Power From Small Ones In Economic Matters
Provincial and state governments across North America
are contemplating and sometimes passing legislation that restricts the
ability of lower governments to make land use decisions. In Wisconsin, for
example, the state legislature has introduced the Livestock Facility
Siting Bill. Under this bill, the state Department of Agriculture would
write rules for siting and expanding livestock facilities. A village, town
or county would then have to use those rules. Local governments also would
be barred from stopping large facilities, except in special circumstances.
In Wisconsin, as in many rural areas of North America, controversy has
arisen over the construction of intensive livestock facilities, including
mega-dairies, feedlots and hog barns. In response to pressure from rural
residents, local governments have sometimes used their land-use bylaws to
prohibit, or to impose rules and regulations on intensive livestock
facilities. The new act would create a standard set of rules that local
governments would be forced to use.
Similar battles and similar laws are happening in Canadian provinces.
Manitoba recently introduced Bill 40, a bill to amend the Manitoba
Planning Act. The bill, according to the government, is intended to
provide "consistency to land use decisions". Like the Wisconsin
legislation, it would reduce the powers of municipal governments over
intensive livestock operations (ILOs).
Critics have lined up on both sides of the bill. The National Farmers
Union maintains that local governments should have ultimate authority in
matters around siting. It claims the new rules will prevent municipal
councils from regulating "matters concerning the use, application and
storage of manure". The NFU says it would also "open up local
governments to lawsuits if a corporation felt they were inappropriately
applying such rules".
Manitoba Pork, on the other hand, claims the "government only went
half way in introducing provincial standards in guiding local land use
decision-making. This simply invites further inconsistencies between
neighbouring rural municipalities."
Saskatchewan's Association of Rural Municipalities recently set up a
committee "to identify impediments to rural economic development
within the existing municipal structure, legislation or policy and to make
recommendations for change." According to SARM President Neal Hardy,
"Our goal is to create a regulatory environment that doesn't hinder
economic development in rural Saskatchewan." If the committee report
finds areas where change is necessary, the logical outcome would be
provincial legislation that forces some uniformity of regulations on
municipalities.
It's obvious there are conflicts between the way different levels of
government see their responsibilities. Municipal governments, by their
nature, allow local input into decisions that have large local impacts.
Provincial and state governments like to think they represent the broader
and more objective view. There is a degree of truth in both sides, and a
degree of problem.
For example, in the case of intensive livestock operations, municipalities
may be lobbied hard by residents over decisions to allow an ILO to build
in their jurisdiction. Provincial governments, in turn, may be pressured
by corporations to override the authority of municipalities on the grounds
that they are too close to the situation to be objective. While provinces
may see the benefits of economic developments, they are less concerned
about the drawbacks.
Saskatchewan's rural municipalities have long defended their right to be
sovereign in their own territory, so any changes that affect their powers
could be a hard sell. Nevertheless, some of the municipalities are so
small that the criticism they can't be objective may be correct. If the
province's solution to that problem is to take away some municipal powers,
it should be asked if the solution is the right one. If RMs are too small
to exercise their authority appropriately, you can either take away their
power or change their structure. Given the track record of Saskatchewan's
RMs, the former might be less difficult. However, the latter would leave
more power at the local level.
ILOs will always be controversial, for many reasons. One of the reasons is
that governments have failed to properly address the problems they create.
As citizens, we sometimes have to accept some inconvenience for the
greater good. If I live in northeast Regina, the smell of the oil refinery
and the occasional bit of ash raining from the sky affect my quality of
life. The refinery is also a huge economic driver in the city's economy.
But if the paint on my car is ruined by the particles from the sky, my
government auto insurance will pay me. The larger society bears some of
the cost.
If a hog barn is built next to my farm and affects my
quality of life and property value, I can't go to Saskatchewan Government
Insurance and be compensated. I can't go anywhere because government
legislation protects the hog barn.
If governments would address this issue of liability, some of the
opposition to ILOs would decline. To date, governments across North
America have chosen denial as the major means of dealing with it.
Municipal governments then sometimes take the cautious approach of
protecting residents from the problems in the first place. The province or
state responds by taking away municipal powers. There has to be a better
way.
One plus for SARM's committee is that it proposes to take the bull by the
horns before the province does. Now, it needs to listen to both sides of
the arguments, not just the side with the money, or the side only seeking
to protect its turf. Good luck!
© Paul Beingessner, reposted with permission.
This article may not be distributed without express permission. |