Let our silence be considered approval as Mike Weland stated in his guest opinion of Nov. 29.

I thought it might be prudent to once again argue the case for property rights on behalf of the Boundary County Property Owner Association and all those concerned with one of the most basic human rights.

To start out with we haven't been silent. Mike Weland and the Boundary County commissioners have been deaf.

Repeatedly we have pointed to Article 1, Section 1 of our State Constitution, which refers to property rights as one of the inalienable rights of man, for example, a right which can not be transferred to another.

If they can not be transferred to another, how then is it that we are transferring those rights to Mike Weland and the Boundary County commissioners?

If you ponder this question for more than 30 seconds, you will likely be so confused you won't know whether to scratch your clock or wind your butt. The harsh reality is that our commissioners either don't care about their oath of office or are counting on our ignorance of it and what it implies.

While the new revised comprehensive plan does refer to the protection of our property rights, it also lays the groundwork for 140 pages of rules and regulations. And that just for starts. Weland is still writing.

To show further the kind of willful disregard for property owners and property rights consider the following statement, "the inability of the Boundary County Comprehensive Plan, adopted May 26, 1988, and subsequent land-use ordinances to adequately control growth.

Boundary County commissioners did on Oct. 5, 2005, direct the planning and zoning commission to conduct review of the Boundary County Comprehensive Plan.

At this point, an outsider was hired by the name of Marty Taylor for the sum on $70 per hour to help Mike Weland and guide him through the process of controlling growth and abolishing property rights.

Marty, of course, denied that he was destroying property rights stating that "it is really not taking unless regulation deprives the owners of all economically viable uses of the property." In other words, if you can still grow rutabagas on that half-acre parcel that you had planned to build your million dollar dream home on, no one has deprived you "all" economic value, so be happy growing rutabagas and go live with your mother-in-law.

What our county government is proposing to do is strip the county's property owners out of millions of dollars of economic gain and deny its residents the right to buy or build where they so choose.

On a moral level, what is the difference between a government fleecing you of $20,000 per acre in the value of your land and leaving you with $2,000 per acre land and a bank robber who steals $20,000 from your bank account but leaves you with $2,000 to spend any way you want.

Do we say "oh well he didn't take it all so therefore it's not stealing?"

The purpose of government in a just society is to punish this type of injustice not to be a party to it. This is why our elected officials are required to take an oath to defend our rights via our State and U.S. Constitution.

The result of this folly of tinkering with our economy and restricting the building of homes is clearly illustrated by the headlines in last week's Herald "North Idaho timber industry in slumps."

We reap what we sow. Houses are made of wood aren't they?

The right to own, control and possess that which we have earned (not what our neighbor has earned) is one of the most important aspects of living in a free country. We don't have to go overseas in search of monsters to destroy who would take away our freedom. We don't have to go any farther than the Boundary County Courthouse.

Please let our commissioners know that you prefer the American system of free enterprise over that of government controls which most of the rest of the world is suffering under.

For those who are wondering why my name appears on the cover sheet for the comprehensive plan if I am opposed to it, I should explain that I requested that my name be removed. I was left on for the obvious purpose of making it look like even us property rights advocates support it, proving once again how deceptive this whole process has been.

Robert Vickaryous

Boundary County Property Owner Association