Court rules in favor of N. Cornwall residents concerned about erosion of town character and elected officials conflict of interest

This weekend’s LDNs front-paged a story about a recent court decision involving North Cornwall that I think adds insight to the “elected-official apathy” that we see in our own community. Apparently, North Cornwall officials changed their zoning regs and deviated from their comprehensive plan in a way so as to allow for the development of a WalMart Supercenter. In doing so, it seems that North Cornwall elected officials ignored the local property owners’ concerns regarding how these ordinance changes and how proposed land development projects may erode the character of their community—and their property values. Local residents and property owners took their leaders to task, asking for everything from ordinance amendments and compliance with the town’s “comprehensive plan”[aka, the character of their community] to, eventually, court intervention.

Although the lower court interpreted its own authority to allow elected officials to ignore requests for ordinance changes, a reviewing court recently disagreed. The latter Commonwealth Court decision states that citizens have a right to appeal to elected officials to change ordinances. This decision gives strength to the idea that property owners have a right to define and protect the "character" of their community. Thus, I find this an especially interesting ruling given that it hits so close to home in so many ways.

To add even more insight to our own potential political situation, there is a “backstory” to this North Cornwall issue that the court also considered and issued a ruling on. North Cornwall's supervisor ran—and was elected, based on his anti-commercial development position. However, that supervisor was also hired by the commercial development project, and therefore, personally benefited from promoting commercial development activities in his town.

Further, his work for the developer conflicted with the town’s character, with the town’s comprehensive plan, and with his position as an elected official. It must have been a no-brainer for the court to rule that a conflict of interest exists and that this elected official must not participate in ANY decision-making matters related to this development project. This particular court decision further reinforces the FACT that, in our country anyway, an elected official's sole purpose and authority is to protect the health, safety, and welfare of their constituents. This means that they do not have the authority to put themselves, their livelihood, or their personal interests ahead of the health, safety, and welfare of their constituents--that is the sacrifice you make when you volunteer to take on the burden of a public office.

Doesn’t this reasoning also apply to our own situation here, at least in terms of the conflicts inherent in conducting business activities and personal gain in the same place that you, as an elected official, participate in decision-making activities directly and indirectly affecting your business?