It’s entirely appropriate that the column “No more money down the LUPA rabbithole” was published as an editorial. If there’s one place for speculation, attention-baiting, and uninhibited first amendment expression, it’s the editorial section of the local paper.
As if your opinions were not disconcerting enough, the enthusiasm, as expressed in your “Thank you, letter writers!” column, left more than one reader questioning whether the speculative comments of the previous article were sincere, or published for the shock value (look, now I’m speculating). If the objective of the LUPA editorial was, in fact, to stimulate the sleepy pages of the editorial section, I would consider the implications before claiming success. The real benefit is the increased exposure for this important issue.
From the introduction to the conclusion, your column represented a gross misunderstanding of politics, law, and economics. I’d hate to see such harmful ideas propagated, especially in this great community. I’m writing to set the record straight.
Members of the Humboldt County Board of Commissioners are elected by popular vote. I’ll refrain from advancing the prevailing political science theories of democracy, and I’ll certainly avoid comparing democracies and republics. I will say, however, that those who don’t vote may, or may not, be favorably represented by the outcome of an election. Once elected, the commissioners have a responsibility to represent their constituency. The vote to spend $10,000 on the LUPA lawsuit, was in response to the overwhelming majority of the participating constituency. The vote is consistent with a massive movement across the West by counties and states (Nevada included) to stop LUPA. Incidental personal benefit to individual board members, as a result of the vote, is periphery. Claims to the contrary, while not unheard of, ought to be accompanied by evidence, or at least some anecdotal sustenance.
Further, your statement saying the LUPA case is ”without merit” and “doomed to fail” is as cynical as it is oversimplified. The reference to possibility and actuality in a legal context was inaccurate legal analysis. So was the comparison of an injunction in administrative and tort law, to an arrest in criminal law. It is, in fact, entirely appropriate that an injunction can be granted based on a risk of irreparable harm absent injunctive relief. Actuality is not a necessary condition. More information on federal injunctions can be found in the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, Title VIII, Rule 65; injunctions that fall under the jurisdiction of the State of Nevada are defined in NRS chapter 33.
There are many ways LUPA is susceptible to litigation, from procedural vulnerabilities, to the age old debate over the balance of article one and article three constitutional provisions. LUPA will affect more interests than just mining and ranching. That is why multiple private interests, multiple counties, and even multiple states are standing against it. Over regulation burdens economies causing them to contract, not expand. They increase the cost of progress and profitability, and put downward pressure on wages. Smaller economies, like ours in Humboldt County, are more sensitive to regulatory burdens. You wrote that you’d make the paper “the first and loudest voice” against LUPA if it threatened the local economy. It’s too late to be the first, but you can still be the loudest.
LUPA is already a threat, let’s act against it before possibility becomes actuality.
Samuel Parry
Risk Manager
