Voters repeal Home Rule
Published in the Sand Mountain Reporter - 3 Nov 2010

Voters in the unincorporated areas of Marshall County repealed the Limited Self-Governance Act on Tuesday, just four years after they approved the controversial measure.

The unofficial tally showed 6,719 votes for repealing the act, and 5,300 for keeping the measure in place.

Paul Brothers, chairman of the Marshall County Citizens for Property Rights, was understandably pleased by the results. His group submitted the required number of signatures petitioning the county to hold the special election.

“It’s a shot in the arm for freedom,” Brothers said. “Not only for us living in the unincorporated areas, but it’s a help to all the people in this county, whether they know it or not. When we give up our rights to our safe place, our homes and our property, we’re no longer free.”

Brothers said he predicted 60 percent would support the repeal.

“It should’ve been a bigger vote, but I’m pretty well satisfied,” he said.

Commonly called Home Rule, the LSGA, which passed in 2006, gave the Marshall County Commission power to adopt rules regulating nuisances like junk in yards, weeds, noise and pollution in unincorporated areas of the county.

The county commission followed by adopting a junk ordinance in February 2007 and assigned two officers to enforce it countywide. While the commission could not levy taxes or establish a zoning program under the ordinance, it could impose fines upon violators.

Passage of the LSGA sparked the creation of Marshall County Citizens for Property Rights. The group believed the LSGA gave the commission too much authority and infringed on private property rights. It also thought the language on the 2006 ballot was misleading. The Citizens for Property Rights was actually involved in fashioning the language on Tuesday’s ballot.

Supporters of the LSGA thought the measure put more local control into the hands of the commission instead of the state and helped clean up the county.

Brothers said repealing the act should not produce an environment for junk-laden property.

“I don’t think so,” he said. “But why would I want to give up my freedom for those few people that live in the county that don’t do like the rest of us do?”

CPR could still make difference in elections
Published in the Sand Mountain Reporter - 22 April 2010

I attended my first meeting of the Marshall County Citizens for Property Rights on April 12. That group apparently has enough signatures to place the Limited Self-Governance Act, commonly called “Home Rule,” back on the ballot Nov. 2.

Voters passed the act by a narrow margin in June 2006 and gave the Marshall County Commission power to adopt rules regulating nuisances like junk in yards, weeds, noise and pollution in unincorporated areas of the county.

The commission adopted a junk ordinance in February 2007 and assigned two officers to enforce it countywide. While the commission cannot levy taxes or establish a zoning program under the ordinance, it can impose fines upon violators.

The Marshall County Citizens for Property Rights, or CPR, is a nonprofit group formed in response to the 2006 vote. CPR wants to repeal the Limited Self-Governance Act, and it uses its Web site, meetings and extensive e-mail list to educate anyone interested in its cause.

At the April 12 meeting at Shoney’s in Albertville, Chairman Paul Brothers said the group had about 2,900 signatures, more than the 2,500 or so necessary to place the act back on the ballot.

I remember Brothers vowing in 2008, when elections were heating up, that none of the incumbents on the commission would be unopposed.

The two incumbent commissioners up for office in 2008, District 2’s R.E. Martin and District 3’s Buddy Allen, were promptly defeated.

Allen, who lost to current District 3 Commissioner Richard Kilgore by less than 200 votes in a 2008 runoff, said CPR probably beat him.

I think he was probably right. CPR, by the way, does not endorse candidates.

While CPR is dismissed by some as “junkers” living in the sticks, I would say that assessment could be a critical mistake if any elected officials come to the same conclusion. Judging by what I observed at the April 12 meeting, these people know the Constitution better than most, are well aware of the legal hurdles in their way, are passionate about their cause and know they can make a difference come election time.

For example, a wide-open race like the District 26 Republican primary features six candidates vying for the nomination. I think the primary is going to be a tight race. I can imagine the top three vote-getters being separated by less than 100 votes. A few votes one way or the other will determine who qualifies for what will surely be a runoff.

That’s why a District 26 candidate like Nathan Broadhurst, who spoke at the April 12 meeting, spent more than two hours talking and listening to the CPR property rights advocates in attendance.

CPR’s biggest complaint is the language of the 2006 referendum. It was vague and confusing, Brothers said, and passed under the guise of a health and safety initiative during a June primary with light voter turnout.

The language of a potential 2010 referendum remains one of CPR’s chief concerns, and it hopes to have some say about the wording.

The group plans to submit its petitions between June 7 and June 28, which will give the probate judge 60 days to verify the signatures.

Whether you agree or disagree with CPR, the group certainly wields some valuable influence among the rural population.

CPR’s next meeting is May 10 at Shoney’s.