Jack Hager is a developer in Ironton, Ohio. He wanted to convert an old, empty school building into apartments for seniors and veterans. However, to do so, he had to convince the local zoning board to change the zoning designation.
At the zoning hearing, neighbors to the school voiced concern that Hager would rent to less-than-desirable individuals and transform their peaceful neighborhood. One zoning board member objected that Hager did not have drawings of the interior of the building, concluding that he didn’t have enough information to support the project. In the end, Hager’s petition was denied.
Jack Hager is hardly unique. All across America, home owners, businessmen, and developers must go before zoning boards and grovel for permission to use their property as they deem best.
The powers of zoning officials go far beyond dictating setbacks, the height of buildings, or density. Zoning officials can also dictate who may live in particular areas.
For instance, in 2005 the city council of Manassas, Virginia, passed a zoning ordinance that restricts residents living in households to immediate relatives. This excluded aunts, nephews, cousins, and other members of the extended family. The council acknowledged that the ordinance targeted Hispanics. Why? Apparently Hispanics were not wanted in the area and zoning provided the tool to keep them out.
In Rochester, New York, a zoning ordinance was rewritten to prohibit more than three unrelated individuals from living in a single-family house. The law was largely aimed at landlord Mick Spaan, who rents twenty-six properties to students at the nearby Rochester Institute of Technology.
Under zoning, non-owners of a parcel of property debate the use of the property, while the rightful owner helplessly watches as others decide his fate. Yet, ownership without control is a contradiction. Under zoning, ownership is nominal—while the owner must pay for upkeep, maintenance, and taxes, he cannot use his property as he decides.
“That is not a just government,” wrote James Madison, “nor is property secure under it, where the property which a man has in his personal safety and personal liberty, is violated by arbitrary seizures of one class of citizens for the service of the rest.” Whether government seizes an individual’s property or restricts his free use of it, the principle remains the same. When government controls the use of your property through regulations, your property is not secure. And when your property is not secure, neither is your life.