Column for Jan. 15, 2009

Beware that planning and zoning ordinances can lead to regulatory tyranny

There are many tools at the disposal of legislators for the control of the masses. Control can take many shapes. Speed limits are a form of behavioral control. A speed limit curbs one's freedom to operate a motor vehicle at any speed one so desires in consideration for the safety of the whole of society. To that end, we in this nation do indeed legislate morality.

In the effort to legislate moral issues, there are always standards employed. Some may say that it is not a high moral standard to stamp out private property rights. Some may say that it is not a high moral standard to deny two people, allegedly in love with each other, the right to marry. We regulate marriage all the time. Law dictates that I have but one wife at a time. That is a moral stance on the issue, as articulated in statute.

I am free to own property. To deny the right to own property would be antithetical to our nation's founding principles. To allow me to own property and yet deny me the freedom to use it for reasonable purposes can be just as tyrannical as to deny me the right to own it in the first place.

When I speak of legislation I do not refer only to the national level of government. Cities often use planning and zoning laws to restrict behavior and freedom. For instance, it is required to have a certain amount of square footage of land upon which to build a dwelling. That is not an unreasonable requirement, considering that with a lot the size of a postage stamp, one dwelling would infringe upon the neighboring property and the property rights of others.

By the time this column is published, the Selma Town Council will have held a public hearing on whether or not to disallow future duplex (two family) homes in the MDR, or Medium Density Residential district. Since I serve on the town's planning board, I have seen this issue come up twice in the past two months.

Selma has a problem with 60% or more of its citizens being renters rather than single family dwelling owners. Renters typically do not have as much vested interest in the town, in property taxes, in the aesthetics of the property, and rental homes often attract a lower quality resident than would purchase property. This is a fact that the town wrestles with, as it has pointed out in its Strategic Plan. I have previously commented upon the plan extensively, yet not exhaustively in this column.

In the planning board meeting, I made the following observations and declarations.
1. The town does indeed have a problem of a disproportionate number of its residents being renters as opposed to home buyers.
2. Regardless of the need to change the proportion of home owners versus renters, private property rights need to be respected.
3. There are many people who own duplex and rental homes for a living.
4. The MDR district is fairly full as it is. There are not a large number of empty lots on which to build, anyway. I doubted that the move would have much impact, if any.
5. The MDR district was designed precisely for single family homes and duplexes.
6. To eliminate duplexes from future additions to an MDR zoned area is contrary to the very essence of what makes the MDR district MDR.
7. To tell a person what he can or can not do with his private property when it fits the intent of the zoning ordinance is not ethical and is denying private property rights.

It is for these reasons that a month ago, the motion was made in the planning board meeting to change the zoning ordinance to eliminate the future building of duplexes in the MDR district but it failed for lack of a second. The second time this discussion and vote came up on January 5th, the majority of the board members felt as I did and voted to recommend that the town council not change the zoning ordinance. Of course the planning board is only an advisory body with no binding authority, and the town council will do what it wants.

I grow tired of the quality of tenants in the duplexes in my own neighborhood. I despise Mariachi music at 1 AM as much as anyone. I have seen drug deals go down with other tenants in the neighborhood. I hate it. But I hate the deprivation of private property rights even more. I agree that Selma needs to have a better quality of residents moving here and a higher percentage of single family homes. I just do not believe that oppressing land owners with zoning requirements that can lead to local regulatory tyranny is the correct methodology. By the time this column is published, we will know where the town council stands on the matter.