Jan 11, 2009

SB 351 -- Barrett Law for Retention Ponds

SYNOPSIS: Barrett Law funding for retention pond barriers. Specifies that Barrett Law funding may be used to finance a fence, mound, guardrail, barrier, or other structure necessary or useful to: (1) limit access by children to a retention pond; or (2) reduce the likelihood that a vehicle will enter a retention pond. Provides that if such an improvement is constructed under the Barrett Law within a platted subdivision, the works board may assess all or part of the lots in that subdivision for the improvement.

STRONGLY OPPOSE: The existence of Barrett Law funding is already an issue at odds with libertarian beliefs, so the expansion of these laws to finance protective structures around retention ponds is unacceptable. These assessments amount to taxes passed without a formal say by landowners affected by them. Can you imagine the number of "do good" organizations wanting to fence in every single retention pond with someone else's money? While tragic, the loss of life in these ponds is not common enough to further compound the problems by invoking Barrett Laws for such use.

STATUS: Authored by Sen. Bray, referred to Committee on Tax and Fiscal Policy.


F6's Editor said...

Where I Disagree:

Sorry once youve seen a child drown anything that can be done to prevent unusual access from a public road onto a State mandated retention pond should be done.

I have to disagree with the party on the principles of the State mandates the ponds be built in the first place to improve fire safety and therefore it is the States right to regulate access and assess fees where necessary for this one.

Where I do agree:

I will agree that the fee assessment needs to be done over the whole subdivision not just one or two houses that border the pond.

I also agree that the charge needs to be fished out with the preexisting Township governmental structure either as part of a PT levy or as part of a special funding initative, regardless before the work is approved the Township should be involved in the planning and construction.

Patriot Paul said...

public safety often conflicts with rigid brands of libertarianism. In this case, offering added protection for life does not interfere with my rights. I would support the measure and monitor its funding.

Mike Kole said...

When I worked for the County Surveyor, he opposed the building of fences by retention ponds because they pose an impediment to anyone attempting a rescue. Need to get a truck in there to pull a vehicle out? Better sit around while the guy cuts down the fence.

The ponds are not built to improve fire safety, in most cases. They are built to provide staged detention of stormwater.

Sean Shepard said...

Each neighborhood should can band together and fund their construction of these things on their own accord.

Patriot Paul is wrong in that funding for this requires something to taken from somebody else forcefully first to pay for it. Whereas anyone with concerns in this area can go door to door in the affected area collecting donations or working with their HOA to take care of this.

Site Meter