Editor:
The ORV Ordinance Was Rammed Through and Should Be Repealed.
Admittedly, I am late to the ORV ordinance issue. I am just starting to learn about it now, and what I am finding out is upsetting. I believe there are probably a lot of people like me in Brown County—just enjoying the nature we have here in Brown County and not paying much attention to local political issues. But the ORV ordinance is something that matters to me, and I feel like the current county commissioners handled this issue very poorly. In view of how poorly the ORV ordinance was handled by the Commission, I consider it encouraging that Jerry Pittman and Blake Wolpert will no longer be county commissioners after the next election in November.
I am sure that there are some people (maybe many) who don’t even know what the ORV ordinance is or what has been happening regarding it. My knowledge about it until only recently has been happenstance and incomplete. I first learned about it sometime after July 2 when the Brown County Democrat published an article about it. Based on the article, the ordinance sounded like a good idea to me. The article explained that the new ordinance (proposed at the time) would allow off-road vehicles to be driven on county roads but would be limited to county residents only. Relying upon what I read in the July 2 article, I moved on with my life enjoying the tranquility of Brown County.
But then Paul Hazelwood wrote a letter to the editor of the Brown County Democrat on July 17. In that letter, Paul assails Tim Clark for “political grandstanding” and argues that we need “thoughtful governance”. But Paul provides very few substantive details in his letter about the ordinance or what the issues of concern are. Besides his amorphous and unclear attacks on Tim Clark, he basically just argues that we need to pass the ORV ordinance right now—it can’t wait. But why?
A clue to the rush is one of the few substantive details that Paul, perhaps accidentally, did mention in his July 17 letter. That is, Paul mentions that one of Tim Clark’s concerns was the use of off-road vehicles by nonresidents, which Paul dismisses as not being sufficiently “forward thinking”. Hold on though, I thought from the July 2 article that the ordinance was only going to allow residents to drive off-road vehicles on county roads. However, I am now finding out that I was misled. Actually, it turns out that the Commission passed the ORV ordinance on July 17 (the same day Paul’s letter was published) with no residency restriction at all, and it passed with the only votes in favor being the two lame duck commissioners. The only commissioner who will remain after November (Ron Sanders) voted against the ordinance.
If you think I’m making this up, let’s look at some specific quotes. In the July 2 article, Blake Wolpert (one of the two lame duck commissioners to vote in favor of the ordinance) is quoted as saying “Dialing in on the specifics, people would have to be a resident of Brown County, ages 18 and older and a licensed driver.” Paul Hazelwood is also quoted in that article as saying “The main concern people brought up against the ordinance is if it is going to be limited to county residents only.” While not a direct quote from Paul, the article characterized his position in this way “Hazelwood said that the goal would be limiting the ordinance to county residents only.” However, two weeks later Paul changed his position in his July 17 letter to the editor where he argued that “Tim’s concerns about nonresidents using ORVs fail to recognize the statistics and
overlook the reality that 79 other counties in Indiana do not experience these issues.” And as it turns out, this new position by Paul was published on the very same day as the meeting in which the ordinance was passed. Unfortunately for me, but not surprisingly, I didn’t read this until the next day after they had already passed the ordinance. Were the previous statements that said it was going to be limited to county residents deceptive? Even if you can argue that it’s not, it certainly deserved a delay in passing the ordinance to study the possibility of limiting off-road vehicle use to county residents. But as it turns out, the Commission failed to do any serious study of this concern at all.
We need to repeal this ordinance. How many people have actually spent the time to read the ordinance? It turns out that the ordinance will not actually benefit most Brown County residents. Did you know that in order to drive an off-road vehicle on Brown County roads, it has to be registered with the state (with a fee and ongoing renewal fees)? Did you also know that you have to carry liability insurance on the off-road vehicle? Most residents who use an off-road vehicle only on their own private property probably don’t bother with registration, fees and liability insurance. So, for the vast majority of Brown County residents (those who have ORVs and those who don’t), this ordinance won’t help them. And these requirements probably can’t be changed because they are state law requirements. Did the Commission consider these issues at all in their haste?
But there are a few people who will bother with satisfying the ordinance requirements like registration, fees and insurance—people who will financially benefit from it like rental businesses. So, it turns out this ordinance is going to benefit a few people economically and will do nothing for the vast majority of people in the county while burdening all of us with more noise, traffic, etc.
Let’s think about how many people in Brown County will actually benefit from this. First of all, what percentage of people in Brown County actually have off-road vehicles? It has to be less than 10-20%. Of those people, how many are going to bother with registration, insurance, etc. just so they can occasionally drive on a county road. It’s hard for me seeing that as more than 25% of people who have off-road vehicles. So, now you’re down to less than 5% of county residents. And let’s be honest, Brown County is not like most other counties in Indiana. Brown County is a tourist destination, most counties aren’t. Why wouldn’t commercial interests take advantage of the opportunity that this ordinance provides? So, who do you think is going to benefit from this ordinance more—ordinary residents like you and me, or business interests and tourists?
For those who have been chomping at the bit to commercialize the use of off-road vehicles on Brown County roads, I would caution you to hold off on purchasing a bunch of new off-road vehicles because there is a reasonable likelihood that this ordinance will be repealed next year. I have recently spoken to Tim Clark who is the Republican candidate for commissioner for District 3, and he might be open to repealing the ordinance. I have only spoken to Tim briefly about this, and I am most certainly not speaking for him now. But Tim is a conscientious person. He is a genuine person and he likes to talk to people about local politics (much more so than me). Please reach out
to Tim and share your thoughts with him about the ORV ordinance, or anything else about county governance that you have concerns about. Tim maintains a website at independentvotersofbrowncountyin.com where he posts a voluminous amount of information about county meetings and local government. He also has a Facebook page at Brown County Matters (BCM). His campaign website is at timjclarkforcommissioner.com. Tim is a pleasant person who cares about the future of Brown County. I think he is persuadable on this issue, and in general, he cares about what the residents of the county want.
The only current commissioner who will still be a commissioner next year (Ron Sanders) has already expressed his opposition to this ordinance by voting against it. While I don’t believe Tim Clark is openly opposed to the ordinance, he seems willing to consider changes to the ordinance. Thus, it is quite possible that the people pushing this poorly thought through ordinance have wasted a lot of our time and energy. I certainly wish that the current commissioners would have followed Tim Clark’s request to study this issue further before rushing it through. If they had, I would’ve been at the county Commission meetings to voice my concerns and opposition. But as it happened, Paul Hazelwood got his way and cut me off from saying anything until after he successfully rammed this through with the votes of two lame duck commissioners. This is not good governance, and in the end, it may end up being a big waste if we can successfully repeal the ordinance after the November election.
Rich Stanley
Nashville
