In 2007, I served as a consultant to a group of citizens opposed to an attempt to bring zoning to Hobbs, New Mexico. During that time, I wrote a series of articles that were published in the local newspaper. I also visited Hobbs in the spring and spoke to local civic groups. Below is the speech I gave to the Rotary Club. In a referendum, zoning was defeated by a 2 to 1 margin.
It is quite easy to make promises. It is quite easy to claim that zoning will protect our neighborhoods, improve our quality of life, promote planning, and more. But promises of cost free benefits are naïve at best.
Those in favor of zoning have prepared numerous documents supporting their cause. They have stated that their goal is “to educate the public on exactly what zoning is and what it is not.” (“Common Questions and Answers Concerning Zoning”)
While this is a commendable goal, this literature is notably absent of numerous key facts. There is virtually no mention of the negative economic consequences of zoning. There is no mention of the political intrigue that accompanies zoning. Most significantly, there is no discussion of the fundamental principles involved. We must ask ourselves why these issues aren’t being addressed. We must ask ourselves why those seeking to educate the public evade the facts.
Zoning is not a new concept. It has been implemented in virtually every city in America. Consequently, we can look at actual experience to see the consequences of zoning. We can see, both in theory and in practice, that zoning is destructive to individual human beings.
The fundamental issue involved in the debate over zoning is moral in nature. It goes to the very core of our view regarding the proper relationship between individuals. The pro-zoners have evaded this issue. They have refused to identify the principles that underlie zoning. To discuss zoning without addressing these principles is misleading, evasive, and intellectually dishonest.
The handout titled “Common Questions and Answers Concerning Zoning” states that growth in Hobbs has occurred without “real planning”. This ignores the months, or even years, of planning that developers, builders, and businessmen invest in every endeavor. The advocates of zoning imply that their plans will somehow be better than those of developers and businessmen. But the truth is, developers and businessmen– who must meet the freely chosen demands of the marketplace– are the true agents of the public.
The document states that “A lack of planning and zoning, combined with a lack of care on behalf of some business owners, has created main urban road corridors that are shockingly unattractive….” But the document fails to address whose standard of “unattractive” is used and why that standard should be imposed on all Hobbsans.
“Attractive” is a matter of individual values. Each of us finds different things attractive; we seek different things in life. Each of us prefers different styles of architecture, different colors, different landscaping. These preferences are based on our individual values.
In land use, our individual values determine the type of use we choose for our property, the style of architecture, its appearance, etc. In a free society, we are permitted to make these choices without interference from others.
Under zoning an individual’s values are subservient to zoning officials. Under zoning, all individuals are compelled to accept the standard of “attractive” dictated by zoning officials. Under zoning, an individual’s values are irrelevant. In short, zoning advocates seek to impose their values upon the citizens of Hobbs.
Zoning advocates have argued that zoning will protect Hobbs’ neighborhoods by preventing incompatible land uses.
It should be remembered that the purchase of property, including a home, is at least partially an investment. As with all investments, the actions of others can have an effect on the value of that investment, for better or for worse.
While it is natural that people want to protect their investment, a civilized person will do so by agreement and contract. An uncivilized person, who does not care about the difference between persuasion and coercion, might try to do so by force or government regulation. Those who seek to use zoning to protect the value of their investment are seeking to gain economic security in exchange for economic liberty. In the end they will have neither.
Advocates of zoning have said that public hearings will provide all citizens a voice in the process. But they fail to explain why a non-owner of a parcel of property should have any voice in its use. Further, they have ignored the fact that this simply promotes gang warfare, as neighbor battles neighbor over the use of land neither owns.
The document states that the lack of zoning in Houston is regarded by some as a “failure” and not “beneficial to all residents”. Such statements ignore the fact that Houstonians have voted on zoning 4 times, and rejected it each time. Such statements ignore the fact that most Houstonians do not want zoning. If the advocates of zoning truly wish to educate the public, why is this not mentioned?
Most communities in Houston are governed by voluntary covenants. If an individual finds such covenants unappealing, he can move to a part of the city with less restrictive covenants. Houstonians enjoy housing costs that are among the lowest in the nation because the free market provides many different housing options.
Many people choose to live in non-restricted communities because property values are lower, and hence houses are more affordable. They don’t mind that a convenience store is near their house, because if it weren’t they wouldn’t have a house. This is an example of how the free market provides a wide variety of land uses, meeting the individual needs of everyone. Zoning eliminates such freedom of choice.
Under zoning, developers must seek government permission to begin a project. Which means, before an individual may use his property as he chooses, he must secure the approval of government bureaucrats.
Under zoning, the developer has no option but to patiently seek the zoning officials’ approval and meet their conditions. These conditions can range from playgrounds to senior citizen centers to “public art”. The costs incurred by the developer– such as maintaining equipment and inventory, servicing the debt on undeveloped land, legal and permit fees, and the costs associated with the zoning officials’ conditions– are ultimately passed on to consumers.
By imposing additional costs on developers (and hence consumers), zoning makes housing less affordable. Those most affected by this reduced affordability are the poor, the middle-class, and first-time buyers. Unfortunately, these individuals seldom realize that zoning is the reason they cannot afford to purchase a home. They are the hidden and voiceless victims of zoning.
The document states that “It is important for all of us to become sufficiently informed so we can understand zoning and not be misinformed”. But the document fails to identify or discuss the moral principle underlying zoning. Zoning’s underlying principle is that the community may impose its values upon individuals.
Further, the proponents of zoning have failed to acknowledge or address any of the negative consequences of zoning. The implication is that Hobbs will somehow avoid the political intrigue that always accompanies zoning and that the economic costs of zoning will somehow fail to materialize.
The very purpose of zoning is to control land use. Economically, this increases the cost of land by limiting the land available for any particular use. As a result, both housing and business costs inevitably increase.
Politically, zoning is a tool wielded by those with political power. This is true in every city with zoning, and it will be true in Hobbs as well. It is not a coincidence that the zoning proposal has been promoted by City officials. Further, in a draft agreement with the City regarding the Beautification Grant, the Maddox Foundation demanded that any zoning proposal meet its approval.
Zoning proponents imply that there are no principles underlying zoning. They acknowledge that “highly restrictive zoning” is detrimental, and promise “balanced zoning” in Hobbs. But regardless of what adjectives are used, zoning remains an infringement of individual rights.
The premise underlying zoning is that individuals should sacrifice their values for the “welfare” of the community. This is precisely what occurs in every city that has zoning. When individuals do not do so willingly, they are jailed, fined, and/ or their property is seized.
To deny the horrors of zoning is intellectually dishonest. To pretend that some Hobbsans will not be forced to sacrifice their values is equally dishonest. There will be victims of zoning.
Are you willing to be one of those victims?
The brochure titled “The Zoning Issue 2006” states that “The major difference between zoning and a subdivision covenant is enforcement”. This is factually wrong and disingenuous.
Covenants are private agreements between consenting individuals and are restricted in scope and authority. Zoning is community-wide and unlimited in scope. Covenants are voluntary. Zoning is imposed by force. Violators of covenants are subject to civil litigation. Violators of zoning are subject to criminal prosecution.
Covenants are based on the principle of private property rights. The owner of a parcel of land voluntarily agrees to limit its use. Zoning is a violation of private property rights. The owner of a parcel of land must seek government permission to use his land.
The difference between covenants and zoning is the difference between the voluntary and the coerced, between using your property by right and using it by permission. Zoning is political and mandatory, while covenants are contractual and based on free choice. To claim otherwise is a rejection of principles and a gross misrepresentation.
You may think my comments are simply ivory tower rhetoric. You may think that I am exaggerating. But the fact is, the political power wielded by zoning officials is often used for nefarious purposes and we can look across the country for evidence.
In Mt. Laurel, New Jersey, zoning was systematically used during the late 1970s and early 1980s to drive the town’s small black population out of the community
An elderly couple in Provo, Utah wanted to hire a live-in caretaker to help them maintain their home and assist them with health issues. They wanted to add a small apartment to their home for their caretaker. A zoning ordinance allows home owners to have live-in help, but not a second kitchen. They were forced to abandon their plans.
In Fairfax, VA a golf range owner was jailed for 98 days and fined $48,000 for violating a zoning ordinance pertaining to landscaping. A lien was also placed on his property.
A Santa Monica, CA resident sought to build an addition to his home. After 15 months and $30,000 in expenses, he abandoned the project because of continued delays imposed by the City’s Planning Department.
These stories are not isolated examples. They occur in every city with zoning. The very nature of zoning vests zoning officials with immense powers and those powers are often used to inflict harm on citizens. Why should we believe that Hobbs will be any different?
Zoning proponents have presented zoning as the solution to many of the “problems”—both real and imagined— confronting Hobbs. Zoning advocates have made many claims about the alleged “benefits” of zoning. Yet, they can provide no examples which substantiate their claims. They cannot point to a single municipality which does not experience higher housing costs, higher taxes, higher business costs, corruption, or other negative effects as a result of zoning. All they can offer is the promise that these things won’t happen in Hobbs.
The challenge to zoning advocates is to prove why Hobbs will not suffer these same detrimental consequences. It is easy to make claims, it is another thing to prove them. It is easy to say that Hobbs is different from other cities, it is another thing to explain and prove why.
We agree that Hobbs is different from other cities, but for a reason entirely different than what zoning advocates would have us believe. We believe that the citizens of Hobbs have a respect for property rights. We believe that the citizens of Hobbs value their freedom.
There is a fundamental difference between zoning advocates and our organization, not just in terms of property rights and land use controls, but also in regard to the value placed on individual human beings.
Where zoning advocates believe that individuals should be compelled to sacrifice their values to those of the community, the neighborhood, or some other collective, we believe that individuals should be free to pursue their own values without interference from others.
The debate over zoning is a debate about the future of Hobbs. It is a debate which must be taken seriously. It is a debate which cannot be conducted via unsubstantiated claims of cost-free benefits. It is a debate which must be conducted on the principles which underlie zoning, and its alternatives. A “debate” conducted on anything less is not a debate, but a negotiation of the details of the implementation of commonly accepted principles. There are no common principles between zoning and freedom.
The challenge to the advocates of zoning is to explain why the citizens of Hobbs should willingly sacrifice their property rights. The challenge to the advocates of zoning is to justify the use of force to compel their fellow citizens to accept and live by their vision of proper land use.