AlterNet--"Banning Corporate Personhood: How Communities Are Taking the Law Back from Big Companies"

In an article by Sabrina Artel, republished on AlterNet, Ben Price of the Community Environmental Legal Defense Fund explains how communities can fight corporate power with a new legal weapon: Home Rule.

The audio link below is a stellar presentation by Mr. Price, who's addressing the pros and cons of Home Rule in NY, and how it may allow for better oversight in the process of natural gas drilling aka fracing or fracking. However, his points on Corporate Personhood, and the need for more local control in issues that profoundly impact communities, is universal and compelling information for everyone to consider.

He's on the right path, but there's another component that we believe should be incorporated for Home Rule to function effectively--strong citizen involvement.

PODCAST

We agree with Mr. Price in theory, but if corporations and their lobbyists can influence legislation on a state and federal level, they'll also find ways to influence easily persuadable and sometimes corruptible local governments, particularly the ones that are strapped for funds and jobs.

The two biggest disadvantages of Home Rule are:

---The ability of a municipality to increase revenue through taxes and bond issuance

---The ability to exert local control over decision making with limited or no oversight and the absence of certain procedural limitations

Both of these situations can lead to financial disaster for a community if the decision makers are not intellectually equipped to understand the ramifications of their decisions. It's not commonplace for most municipalities, especially smaller ones, to count among their local government members individuals who have a strong economic and financial background. In fact, most local governmental bodies in Alabama are made up of average citizens who's education level does not exceed high school.

In communities where there are officials with a higher education degree, the problem persists of a lack of economic and financial expertise, in conjunction with the ability to look down the road and envision potential long-range consequences. These communities frequently place the fate of their development plans into the hands of county officials. The agenda of a county government differs from local government and they'll always operate in the best interest of county revenue potential first and foremost, without fair consideration for local community impacts such as:

---Environmental impacts on the quality of life, including air and water quality

---Potential long-term impact on the alteration of the surrounding lands and how it will affect future generations

---The shifting of the community political power base to corporatism instead of populism

---Opening the door to non-community based special interests to write and direct local zoning laws and regulations

Readers of our site can recall numerous stories we've posted that serve as compelling examples of how the theory of Home Rule can be abused by a less than transparent local governmental body. Alabama as a whole is replete with instances of local governmental bad decision making, violations of the Open Meeting Act, adopting zoning laws that are against the wishes of the community as a whole, and a general tin-ear stance when it comes to listening to the will of the people.

Far too often decisions are made by less than one percent of the local community's collective population, yet the impact of those decisions are felt by all. Large industrial and invasive projects should never be approved without full community involvement from start to finish. Citizens need to be able to fully evaluate the impacts of potential projects with unbiased information sources and not be bombarded with the propaganda of PR representatives who are only in it for profit.

Local officials encourage this kind of bad behavior and misinformation campaigns because they know they don't have to let the the process be fair. Alabama's Open Meeting Laws are weak and full of loopholes which further enable secrecy about discussions between officials and potential businesses looking to set up shop in the local area.

More often than not, the community is kept in the dark until it's too late to mount effective opposition to a project they do not want. The more controversial a project is the higher the level of secrecy of any precursory information about the plan.

We think a better solution would be to allow citizens to vote on zoning ordinances and proposed projects in their communities in conjunction with Home Rule. By applying stronger citizen involvement in the process of local decision making, the local government has to answer to a deeper layer of the community's wants and desires, and it removes the inclination of local officials to run rough-shod over their citizens' voices.

There are states that have adopted citizen involvement (through voting) in zoning ordinance changes and implementation. We'd like to see Alabama become more responsive to the value of populist government and allow her people to have more of a voice in their communities.

Currently, after years of stripping away citizen power, many Alabamians have simply given up fighting City Hall and Montgomery. They've become dejected and beaten down after years of being ignored by the decision makers at state and local levels and have lost their will to fight. There's been a massive slide in the balance scale of who has the most rights and the loudest voice from the people to corporations.

Corporate America and the political machine intended this result. They've taken this method to the national level and gained Personhood status thanks to the Supreme Court. Mr Price says "as individuals we don't get exemptions from the law that our neighbors (meaning corporations) do." He's right in that assessment, but we don't believe Home Rule is the solution in absence of populist governmental bodies.

Much like corporate America, local government for the most part, will not police itself and tends to operate under the assumption that election to office means they no longer have to listen to their constituents. A fifedom of sorts is created and it becomes a push pull between the interests of a few versus the interests of many--democracy is thwarted and in its place a dictatorship arises.

Home Rule is a worthy debate and idea. Let's go the extra mile and add real teeth to the discussion by giving citizens a stronger voice in what happens to their communities through voting on what they want their community to become--a vibrant and thriving place to call home or a sacrifice zone.

Taking back the law from big business is only half of the problem. Reinstating citizen power and giving the people a mighty voice in the process is the key to a successful and lasting sustainable solution.

So Say We The Opinion Board Of The Vincent Alabama Confidential

 Subscribe in a reader