© 2008 Lewis Family Farm. All Photos © Barbara A Lewis, except where otherwise noted. All rights reserved.
THE COURT: Don't we get back to my two questions to you: Whether all agricultural use structures are single family dwellings and vice versa? Can't that explain why they are listed separately? Because someone who's got a single family dwelling that they are putting up on their residential property in a Resource Management Area or something else that's not a farm, then they would have to the [sic] a permit, correct?
MS. SIMON: Yes.
THE COURT: But if it's an agricultural use structure and a single family dwelling but it meets the definitions of both, couldn't that be exempt?
MS. SIMON: Then why would the legislature have separately said one is jurisdictional in Resource Management and one is not?
Is the answer to be found in the Court's question?
Traditional Logic of Categorical Terms
THE COURT: Because not all single family dwellings are agricultural use structures, that's why, because they couldn't just say that agricultural use structures are exempt if they want to have jurisdiction over the single family dwellings that are not agricultural use structures.
Comment: the dialogue on page 101 may be described in Set Theory with a Venn diagram. The words 'and' and 'or' have different meaning. By example: set A, single family dwellings in the Park, is pink; set B, agricultural use structures or farm buildings, is blue; set C, farm worker housing as the subset of A and B, not A or B, and is purple, the combined tiny minority of each. So, some of A and B form C, or the sum of [A Λ B] = C. This is the traditional logic of categorical terms.
The Court’s question:
