Tea Partying at Planning Meetings | Market Urbanism UPDATE: Besides equity and the central issue of environmental quality, I left this comment at Market Urbanism: …my major concern about the idea of “…likewise provide a regulated built environment…
]]>I always use as a starting point the three basic rights that courts have most often mentioned: the right to acquire property, the right to alienate it, and the right to freely use it subject to the limits Emily has mentioned. I’d argue there is plenty of room for regulation left here without directly infringing on any of these three.
]]>First off, not necessarily, and secondly is this a good thing? Or do you think the “activist” would think it’s a good thing? I don’t necessarily agree with that. People are not as stupid as you may think.
]]>What about all the externalities of development? Should a land-owner be allowed to build anything they want if the result of that development would directly tax adjoining infrastructure? If I build a large parking garage, I will be encouraging thousands of cars to now use the fronting road. It seems there need to be some kind of legal mechanism for recognizing some developments that have usual needs. Sure, there are impact fees, but if the property is so poorly built or used, then when the property never is productive, it is a net loss to the community when maintenance is due (long after the impact fees have been collected and spent). I think my biggest issue with the Harm principal is it relies on individuals having the actual ability to sue (and win) when their property is being harmed. If Wal-Mart buys the “back twenty” and builds a distribution facility and my property now floods more frequently due to run-off, this position now relies on me have the time and resources to actually sue Wal-Mart. So yeah, I think government, especially at the local level, does a fantastic job of empowering all citizens to appeal decisions or at least bring to light negative implications of development before it becomes a train of lawsuits. In fact, we already see issues with this default to the Harm rule in areas where no rules exist. In far too many places, cars are allowed to pollute the air substantially. There are no impact fees assigned to them. How shall I sue them all? Of course, some people believe that the hue hovering above the city is merely dust or isn’t toxic –whatever. Which I guess just underlines the ambiguity of it all and why we need thousands of micro-democracies where we can do our best to right as many wrongs as possible while expecting people to hold the line on any local government to push back any abuse. I would happily have my vote than have a good attorney. For what it’s worth, I think that is the America our founders had in mind too. Does that mean that our current zoning laws are all good. Not at all. We need a reset in most places. But let’s not throw the baby out with the bath water here. Property Rights need to be restated more clearly as the Right To Own Property. What you do with that property is not a right necessarily and should be contingent on if you . Requiring people broadcast their intentions (permit) to mitigate against obvious infringements seems far too logical to simply dismiss it altogether. Let’s shift the discussion from the absence of the rule of law in land ownership and move toward better, sensible definitions of what is legal and what isn’t. Then property owners will more clearly know how the sovereign freedom to own property is defined in a free society.
]]>Do you propose that — just pick any particular commercial area — zoning should be removed? And that merchants & property owners will form their own BID? A statement like yours might sound great in planning school, when starting from scratch in an ideal world on a Von Thunen plain, but I am perplexed that what you appear to propose can be even remotely plausible. Pray explain.
]]>