Zoning Away the American Dream
By John Cornell
[email protected]
Exclusive to The Libertarian Enterprise
Many claim to be against big government and criticize the federal
government for its omnipotence, but turn around and advocate the same
tyranny at the state and local levels. Supposedly the government
which governs best is government close to home. Such an attitude is
best highlighted by a quote from the American Revolution, "Which do I
have to fear most: a tyrant three thousand miles away, or three
thousand tyrants not a mile away?"
Zoning started in America in the early twentieth century as a
supposedly legitimate means of keeping "incompatible" uses of land
from locating near each other, such as a junkyard next to a
schoolyard (what's the difference?) or a nuclear weapons waste
disposal facility down the street from a hospital. As with all
government, zoning and land use bureaus have since grown, and a
Supreme Court decision in 1926 gave power to local governments to
continue the spread of such abuses of property rights. Today we have
a nightmare of perversely restrictive and often contradictory
regulations to the point that you can't breathe in peace in your home
without potentially being accused of "violating" your neighbors miles
away.
The politburo zoning nazis masquerade as the "keepers of American
standards" to allegedly ensure price support for real estate or other
"community" or "family" values. In Lost Rights, James Bovard
examines this legalized plunder of property rights by government and
concludes, "Modern zoning laws presume that no citizen has a right to
control his own land -- and that every citizen has a right to control
his neighbor's land." He asserts that zoning laws have been used to
discriminate along racial and class lines, drive people out of
business, manage property (at the owner's expense), take property by
force (by eminent domain or alleged code violations), artificially
raise property values (at the expense of others), impose arbitrary
aesthetic values, and dole out political favors. Your home and your
land are no longer your castle.
The result? Overcrowding, higher taxes, arbitrary, confusing,
ever-changing laws, forced conformity, bankruptcy, discrimination,
etc. Often the bureaucrats are reacting to pressure from the special
interests of anyone in the neighborhood with enough money or enough
vocal decibels. Citizens with NIMBY (Not in My BackYard) mind sets
advocate "Put it Next to Someone Else" (or PINTSE, denoting the size
of their tolerance.) The stupid irony of the whole mess is that the
same government that stops a shopping center from going in down the
street from your home turns around and forces slums in next to other
nice neighborhoods, in "deals" in which government-owned land is sold
for a fraction of its market value. Fort Collins, Colorado, is good
at this. Zoning is a two-edged sword (but government never cuts
itself).
So who's to say how one person's land affects another's property
value -- at least in a free market? An infinite variety of factors
affect market values, upwards and downwards. Who has a right to try
to control any of them? If I can force my neighbor to mow his lawn,
paint his exterior an "appropriate" color, or garage his junk car,
where does it stop? If a nearby, major employer suddenly decides to
close the local plant and move its employees out of town, and I see
the reduction in market value of my home resulting from the decrease
in demand, do I have a right to force that company to keep the
facility open and retain its employees on its payroll? Or sue the
company for damages equal to the loss I claim I've suffered?
Granted, I may be able to demand that my neighbor follow the rules of
a homeowners' association that we've voluntarily signed; there is a
difference between enforcing a contract and initiating arbitrary
force for arbitrary reasons, such as governments impose. And if I
have a dispute with my association, I can always take them to court,
or they can take me, and we can let the so-called justice system
stand by as a third-party arbitrator. But what if I feel a need to
sue my government for the rules they impose without my voluntary
agreement? Then I'm a plaintiff at the mercy of the defendant for my
justice.
And observe older "historic" sections of cities. There are
collectivists who want to "preserve" some "nostalgic" homes by
forcing the owners to remodel them according to a
government-mandated, prescribed aesthetic formula to make them "fit"
with the surrounding old buildings, even though the original builders
a century ago never intended any to look alike. It seems these are
the same people who wail about the "cookie cutter" homes in the newer
subdivisions at the edge of the city, despite the fact that people
are willingly buying those in droves. The "preservers of our
heritage" like conformity when they have the power to force it on
you, but don't like it when people do it of their own free will.
Even the rural countryside is not immune from these forms of
despotism. Suppose you're a farmer and own a quarter section (160
acres) of undeveloped farmland several miles from a large city.
People fed-up with urban life are building on acre-sized lots
scattered across the countryside. A variety of homes or small
developments of custom homes have popped up next to your farm.
Several scores of people are now your neighbors, happy with the view
of the mountains your land provides.
Now you're nearing retirement and want to pass as much wealth as
possible to your children. Because of increased demand from a new
stream of urban exiles, you decide to subdivide into a planned
development with three hundred medium and large homes, on lots a
fraction of an acre. The houses are two stories high, with paved
streets, sidewalks, sewers, streetlights, cable and other amenities
you wish to provide, in addition to ones the county (or annexing
city) force you to include.
The new rural gentry become furious. You're accused of destroying
their "lifestyle," "disrupting the rural serenity," "invading the
ambiance," and spoiling "their" view of the mountains and of
generally "crowding them out." They claim the houses you intend to
build, or the small shopping center at one end of the development,
will disturb them. They squeal about ecology, drag out the weasels
and rodents and other rabid wildlife and parade them as natives
needing special attention. The noisemakers squawk that they're used
to your land being empty, and that it's your duty to leave it
the way they found it. Now you're a "rich, greedy developer." If
you sell to a construction and development company, then they're
"big, evil corporate." Even worse if the developer is from
out-of-state. (Horror of horrors, let's make this a restricted
neighborhood to preserve local -- er, American values.)
And if you don't build, your neighbors will sue you because of
the smells coming from your cows.
So the local thugs confiscate your property before you face the
inheritance taxation authorities, the former roughing you up so the
latter can bury you. (Life's a tax, and then you die. And then it's
still a tax.)
A recent example of this occurred in Loveland, Colorado. Some
"we-got-here-first" neighbors created such an uproar that the city
put to a vote whether the owner of a proposed development could
exercise his property rights, despite the fact that he had
painstakingly met every city restriction and was approved by the
local zoning and land use bureaucrats.
The "people" denied them to him. He lost a substantial
investment. So much for "democracy."
And if you're not sued? They'll probably put up with you for a
while, see their own real estate value appreciate, sell it, and move
farther out into the wilderness. Then cry all the way to the bank.
If I were threatened with such asset forfeiture, I'd file a
counterclaim. If the plaintiffs asserted that my land provides them
with value by being empty, and that I must keep it that way, I'd
declare that the value they receive is a subsidy. I'd sue for back
charges, equal to the value of what I could realize on the open
market for that land, plus all the costs I've incurred to develop it
and defend it, plus the return I'd have made if I had developed it.
Maybe this wouldn't work, but I'd demand that if they want to manage
my property, they'd better purchase it outright at my price -- or
shut up.
My neighbor might keep all kinds of crap in his yard, his
property an unendurable eyesore. But to paraphrase the saying, "I may
not agree with you, but I'll defend till death your right to say it,"
I say, "I may think your house and yard are ugly and distasteful, but
I'll defend till death your right to keep them that way."
John Cornell is a finance professional whose personal goal is to
spread rational, Objectivist and libertarian ideas by writing and
publishing libertarian science fiction and literary novels, stories
and articles and occasional pieces of political satire and humor.