A perfect local example on why licensing and zoning codes are unnecessary

[Brian Defferding]

So I just had a chat with my friend last night about the tattoo business. He told me he is backing out of the tattoo shop he is working at, and in two weeks he will set up a tiny studio in his house and run his own tattoo business from his home.

Because he won't have a tattoo shop that takes a percentage from his pay, and because he will not have any additional bills to pay, he will pass those savings onto the customer. The result: Customers will save around 40%. When he was a resident artist at a tattoo shop, he would charge $100/hour. With this business from home, he will charge $60/hour.

However, there are two big problems from this: He won't be licensed by the state government, and because he's not doing it for free, it will go against zoning codes. Yes, this will be an under-the-table business.

I have known this tattoo artist for around four years now. He has been tattooing for over seven years, five of those he ran his own tattoo and piercing shop. He is the artist of my large Cthulhu back piece (http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v173/deftoons/DSC03318.jpg) (which is still a work-in-progress). I never had any sanitation problems with it, and I had multiple sittings with him over a two year period. Some of my friends have had their tats done by him. I trust him to be my tattoo artist. Because he needs the money to pay bills (one of the reasons why he decided to do this is because we are in a recession and tattooing, just like everything else, has been hit hard from that, thus he wanted to find a way to lower fees to meet the demand), and he also intends to get back into running his own shop again one day, he holds it in his best interest to run a clean ship from his home business.

He told me that when he had his own shop and was paying the license fees, a state regulator was supposed to come in regularly to check his shop and make sure the equipment worked and it was clean. Over five years, that person came in twice, and spent no more than five minutes in the store each visit. He looked around, wrote some things down, then asked him if he tested his equipment, to which he replied "Yeah once a month." Then the regulator asked him for the paperwork on the test, and my friend took out the papers from a drawer and plopped them on the table, and this guy didn't even bother to look through the pile. Those papers could have been book reports for all the state employee knew, he just gave him the benefit of the doubt and left.

This has been going on for decades. Despite the lacking and poor enforcement by the state, nobody is breaking out from infection from any tattoo work in Wisconsin. The reason why the state wants licensing of tattoo artists is for the licensing fees to help pay for their overreaching budget.

Many other states in the union do not have this licensing process either.
It’s examples like this that help prove how government licensing of an occupation will never give any actual legitimacy to that industry, it’s free markets that will. Furthermore, it also shows how zoning codes actually make things harder for entrepreneurs to start their own business in some industries. Some industries all you need is a laptop. Tattooing requires that one has a licensed studio in a commercial zone. This does not in any way equal to a clean and affordable business. It just makes it unnecessarily harder.

[BenIsForRon]

Ok, this is a case for zoning reform, not elimination of all zoning laws. I still would not like to have a paper mill near the park where people take their kids.

[bruce leeroy]

Is it true that Houston was pretty much built and grew into the city it is today with next to no zoning laws?

[.Tom]

Abolish all zoning laws. You have no right to tell someone how to use their property.

[ivflight]

You assume the paper mill owner was too stupid to buy the cheap land further away from the park, or the park service was stupid enough to build the park next to the mill. You have also not weighed the options - you just assume the park is more important, and the mill must be kept away by fiat. If the park is in such high demand, and that plot of land is the only one suitable, then it won't be a problem for the park service to buy the paper mill also (or buy enough surrounding land that someone can't build a paper mill right next to the playground).

There is no reason to dictate these things - spontaneous order works amazingly well, and as all of us know from our daily living, it is much easier to find solutions in the marketplace than by working through government.

If you're concerned about noise, then that is different - noise is something that leaves one property and pollutes another. This can be settled with civil suits, but generally just the threat of being sued will invoke a market solution - maybe the mill applies soundproof material to the side of the building and paints green trees on it.

[ivflight]

Something I forgot - where I live the largest business in the county also builds a lot of community parks around their buildings to keep community members happy. It would be highly ironic if the local governments made zoning laws that said businesses can't be located adjacent to parks. Good bye parks!

[MelissaWV]

You assume the paper mill owner was too stupid to buy the cheap land further away from the park, or the park service was stupid enough to build the park next to the mill. You have also not weighed the options - you just assume the park is more important, and the mill must be kept away by fiat. If the park is in such high demand, and that plot of land is the only one suitable, then it won't be a problem for the park service to buy the paper mill also (or buy enough surrounding land that someone can't build a paper mill right next to the playground).

There is no reason to dictate these things - spontaneous order works amazingly well, and as all of us know from our daily living, it is much easier to find solutions in the marketplace than by working through government.

If you're concerned about noise, then that is different - noise is something that leaves one property and pollutes another. This can be settled with civil suits, but generally just the threat of being sued will invoke a market solution - maybe the mill applies soundproof material to the side of the building and paints green trees on it.

The trouble with paper mills isn't the sound... it's the stench. The mill wouldn't need to be right next to the park, either, and it's a silly example (by the other poster) because paper mills are generally built far from population centers for that very reason. Of course, population centers then creep closer and closer, and then residents whine about the smell.

[Erazmus]

The market will ALWAYS be more efficient, outperform, and please the people better than government can. Central planning doesn't work. It doesn't work in theory or practice.

[ivflight]

The smell can be dealt with in the same was as the sound pollution. If the mill's byproducts enter onto, and materially interfere with the use of someone's property then the mill should be sued. The mill will quickly find a way to capture the byproducts or they will move (or just constantly pay the nearby residents for damages), whichever is cheaper according to the market's determination of the cost of land, moving trucks, new construction, and smell capturing equipment.

[BenIsForRon]

Paper mill was just an example. It's just a general example of why city plans dictate that industry should be kept separate from residential and recreational areas. But there are other reasons for zoning.

Floodplains are a good example. You could build a parking lot in a floodplain, but that is incredibly wasteful, as the land is better suited for agricultural use. In the short term, there may be economic advantages to placing a parking lot in the floodplain, but in the long term, the community will most definitely see problems. They will find that the land would have better been used for agriculture as it provides an economical source of local food.

[payme_rick]

But there are other reasons for zoning.

Floodplains are a good example. You could build a parking lot in a floodplain, but that is incredibly wasteful, as the land is better suited for agricultural use. In the short term, there may be economic advantages to placing a parking lot in the floodplain, but in the long term, the community will most definitely see problems. They will find that the land would have better been used for agriculture as it provides an economical source of local food.

No.. and no...

[MelissaWV]

Paper mill was just an example. It's just a general example of why city plans dictate that industry should be kept separate from residential and recreational areas. But there are other reasons for zoning.

Floodplains are a good example. You could build a parking lot in a floodplain, but that is incredibly wasteful, as the land is better suited for agricultural use. In the short term, there may be economic advantages to placing a parking lot in the floodplain, but in the long term, the community will most definitely see problems. They will find that the land would have better been used for agriculture as it provides an economical source of local food.

Why would someone buy land that floods to build a parking lot on?

If it floods reliably, then no one will use the lot. Assuming this is a pay-to-use lot, then it'll be sold in short order (probably at a loss) because it never made sense as a business venture.

If the land would have been "better used" for agricultural purposes, then someone should have purchased it and used it as such. The fact it would make great farmland does not bring forth a willing farmer, transportation infrastructure, distribution network, buyers for the produce, etc.. Perhaps the farmers in the area looked into other factors, and decided the land wasn't worth the price. The moron who wanted to build an underwater parking lot saw a goldmine. He fails.

[BenIsForRon]

Floodplains are commonly used for commercial parking. In extreme cases the owner will just build pumps to take care of severe floods. This does a great disservice to the local population, because as the merits of organic agriculture and local food become more apparent, they will be out of luck, and have no local area on which aspiring farmers can do anything. If you look at many commercial areas, over 60% of the land is devoted to parking alone! This is not intelligent development. Yet, the short term economic gains for the owner make it worth the ultimately stupid expenditure.

And I think you know farmers aren't always rolling in money, and they won't have money to purchase land until the population has grown sufficiently to support their farm. Zoning should be primarily based in concerns for future generations. No zoning subjects communities to the whims of short term capital interests.

[dannno]

Floodplains are a good example. You could build a parking lot in a floodplain, but that is incredibly wasteful, as the land is better suited for agricultural use. In the short term, there may be economic advantages to placing a parking lot in the floodplain, but in the long term, the community will most definitely see problems. They will find that the land would have better been used for agriculture as it provides an economical source of local food.

...then they'd go out of business, sell the property and it would be used for it's most useful purpose because whoever has the most useful purpose would be willing to pay the most to acquire the property.

[Live_Free_Or_Die]

Floodplains are commonly used for commercial parking. In extreme cases the owner will just build pumps to take care of severe floods. This does a great disservice to the local population, because as the merits of organic agriculture and local food become more apparent, they will be out of luck, and have no local area on which aspiring farmers can do anything. If you look at many commercial areas, over 60% of the land is devoted to parking alone! This is not intelligent development. Yet, the short term economic gains for the owner make it worth the ultimately stupid expenditure.

And I think you know farmers aren't always rolling in money, and they won't have money to purchase land until the population has grown sufficiently to support their farm. Zoning should be primarily based in concerns for future generations. No zoning subjects communities to the whims of short term capital interests.

people would not build as many ocean front high rises if government did not distort risk with zoning and flood plain insurance.

[silverhandorder]

Ok, this is a case for zoning reform, not elimination of all zoning laws. I still would not like to have a paper mill near the park where people take their kids.

Why would a paper mill buy expensive land near a park?

[Danke]

Why would a paper mill buy expensive land near a park?

Just to prove a point that zoning works?

[ivflight]

Ben,

Why do you assume that business has no foresight? If we learn anything by observation, we should conclude that it is government that has no foresight (nor hindsight).

You provide an impossible example where you offer both that the farm idea is legitimate, and that the customers to support it do not exist. You also offer that the parking lot idea is not legitimate, but somehow the customers to keep it profitable do exist. The only situations I know of where this is pseudo-sustainable are situations that come about by government fiat.

You are trying to make conclusions for other people based on what YOU think is right, but you ignore the interests of the other people.

[dannno]

Floodplains are commonly used for commercial parking. In extreme cases the owner will just build pumps to take care of severe floods. This does a great disservice to the local population, because as the merits of organic agriculture and local food become more apparent, they will be out of luck, and have no local area on which aspiring farmers can do anything. If you look at many commercial areas, over 60% of the land is devoted to parking alone! This is not intelligent development. Yet, the short term economic gains for the owner make it worth the ultimately stupid expenditure.

And I think you know farmers aren't always rolling in money, and they won't have money to purchase land until the population has grown sufficiently to support their farm. Zoning should be primarily based in concerns for future generations. No zoning subjects communities to the whims of short term capital interests.

If somebody builds a parking lot in a flood plane and people are STILL parking there, then there is obviously a huge demand for parking there for a reason.

If there is better non-floodland near by that can be used for parking, then I'm sure people would rather use that and might even be willing to pay for a shuttle into the flood plain where they apparently need to be for some reason :confused:

If the government wasn't subsidizing farmers who don't grow food, then farmers who do grow food wouldn't have to compete with the lower prices of the farmers who are subsidized.

The free market isn't perfect at determining land use, but they are better than the government. The government doesn't know what the best use for a certain piece of land is, they can only guess, and then enforce it by law. If there is a better use, it is illegal to use the land for the better use. That's not helping things.

[fisharmor]

I'm convinced that Ben only posts in order to play devil's advocate.

I'm also pretty convinced that the only reason why paper production still stinks in 2010 is because we forced them to move out of city limits, and all their R&D money got spent on relocation.

I'm dead certain that the only reason to use floodplains as parking lots is because of sprawl, which only happens in the first place because of the zoning laws that make redevelopment economically unfeasible.

I have to put the Fed on the top of things we absolutely have to get rid of, but zoning law is a really, really close #2.

[Erazmus]

The free market isn't perfect at determining land use, but they are better than the government. The government doesn't know what the best use for a certain piece of land is, they can only guess, and then enforce it by law. If there is a better use, it is illegal to use the land for the better use. That's not helping things.

This...with one caveat.

If there is a better market use for the land, it will eventually end up being used for that purpose if the demand becomes strong enough. Time becomes the ultimate factor. The market, with time, will iron out the problems. So, I would argue the market is perfect. :p

[MelissaWV]

Floodplains are commonly used for commercial parking. In extreme cases the owner will just build pumps to take care of severe floods. This does a great disservice to the local population, because as the merits of organic agriculture and local food become more apparent, they will be out of luck, and have no local area on which aspiring farmers can do anything. If you look at many commercial areas, over 60% of the land is devoted to parking alone! This is not intelligent development. Yet, the short term economic gains for the owner make it worth the ultimately stupid expenditure.

And I think you know farmers aren't always rolling in money, and they won't have money to purchase land until the population has grown sufficiently to support their farm. Zoning should be primarily based in concerns for future generations. No zoning subjects communities to the whims of short term capital interests.

If the farm isn't profitable (or at very least sustainable) then why should it exist? If it pains people that much, and they are so passionate, then they can start a "subsidy" program of sorts, donating money to a fund to help those poor farmers buy land to grow things for which there are probably not enough workers or buyers.

In the meantime, the trucks to transport that produce won't have anywhere to park.

Fail.

[Live_Free_Or_Die]

I'm dead certain that the only reason to use floodplains as parking lots is because of sprawl, which only happens in the first place because of the zoning laws that make redevelopment economically unfeasible.

I would attribute subsidizing sprawl to public roads.

[Isaac Bickerstaff]

I am 100% for extremely draconian local zoning ordinance, but only applied to federal or state subsidized or mandated development.

[erowe1]

Ok, this is a case for zoning reform, not elimination of all zoning laws. I still would not like to have a paper mill near the park where people take their kids.

So buy the property next to the park, then you'll have a right to decide what gets built there.

As for me, rather than try and centrally plan who builds what where, when I want to take my kids to a park, I'll just go to a place that's not next to a paper mill.

[BenIsForRon]

The point I'm trying to make that all of you are refusing to understand, is that on a local level, such as a community or city, it is beneficial for development have a set of ground rules.

Development will occur no matter what, but future generations may be getting the shaft when sloppy development is implemented in present. In many cases, good agricultural land has been used for residential and commercial development, for no other reason than the land was cheaper. However, the next generation will have no option but to rely on food grown farther away. Right now it's ok for us all to eat food grown in Iowa, because it's so cheap to send it all across the globe. But given that transportation costs are rising, this will make the food more expensive in the future, maybe prohibitively so.

So, MelissaWV, your limited market driven view leaves out the interests of the future generations. The current community should not have to shell out money that they don't have to prevent a Super Walmart from popping up in area that would serve much better as close source of food a few decades down the road.

And agriculture is just the most important reason for zoning, but there are other concerns as well. Every township knows it will grow to some degree in the future. Zoning, when properly implemented, allows the people to control how that growth occurs. They choose to have certain areas be for families, while others are for single people, students, and so on. Other areas would ideally be commercial/residential mixed use areas, at a central location to everything else. Industry would have to be in some area outside of where members of the community wish for their town to grow. This prevents industrial land and residential land from butting heads any time in the near future. It adds a level of complexity outside of simple property value. Which is desirable in my opinion.

Like I said, its about the future.

[MelissaWV]

...
So, MelissaWV, your limited market driven view leaves out the interests of the future generations. The current community should not have to shell out money that they don't have to prevent a Super Walmart from popping up in area that would serve much better as close source of food a few decades down the road.
...

I think the disagreement here is that you believe there's some ultimate and over-arching judgment on what is "better" besides the market itself. How do you know it wouldn't be "better" as a hospital, or as a school, or as a housing development, or as... a Super Walmart? There might be better soil for what grows locally further along, and perhaps that's where the farmers are. Perhaps people are quite willing to pay a premium for food to be trucked in, which suits people that make a living trucking in food and selling it via supermarkets and the like just fine.

It's something we're going to have to agree to disagree on, I guess.

[dannno]

I think the disagreement here is that you believe there's some ultimate and over-arching judgment on what is "better" besides the market itself. How do you know it wouldn't be "better" as a hospital, or as a school, or as a housing development, or as... a Super Walmart? There might be better soil for what grows locally further along, and perhaps that's where the farmers are. Perhaps people are quite willing to pay a premium for food to be trucked in, which suits people that make a living trucking in food and selling it via supermarkets and the like just fine.

It's something we're going to have to agree to disagree on, I guess.

Exactly, but one of the things we have to ask is why is it so much cheaper to truck food all over?

One of the reasons is because our government subsidizes oil through direct subsidies AND more importantly through a vast global empire than costs nearly $1 trillion every year...

Gas prices would likely have been much higher, on average, over the last few decades which would have made local farm land more valuable.. the farm land became less valuable due to govt. subsidies in oil. So what BenIs4rp is trying to do is correct government intervention with more government intervention without realizing the government was the problem in the first place.

[BenIsForRon]

I think the disagreement here is that you believe there's some ultimate and over-arching judgment on what is "better" besides the market itself. How do you know it wouldn't be "better" as a hospital, or as a school, or as a housing development, or as... a Super Walmart? There might be better soil for what grows locally further along, and perhaps that's where the farmers are. Perhaps people are quite willing to pay a premium for food to be trucked in, which suits people that make a living trucking in food and selling it via supermarkets and the like just fine.

It's something we're going to have to agree to disagree on, I guess.

Here's the thing, in a well planned community zoning ordinance, things such as the optimal utility of land is well supported by evidence gathered over the years through population research, soil tests, GIS analysis of water tables, and so on. It isn't just some bureaucrats opinion of where he'd like to see a farm, its the recommendation of professionals in all fields working with businesses, government, and citizens.

It's a way to ensure a high quality of life for citizens in the present and future, as well as protect scarce resources and the environment.

[dannno]

Here's the thing, in a well planned community zoning ordinance, things such as the optimal utility of land is well supported by evidence gathered over the years through population research, soil tests, GIS analysis of water tables, and so on. It isn't just some bureaucrats opinion of where he'd like to see a farm, its the recommendation of professionals in all fields working with businesses, government, and citizens.

It's a way to ensure a high quality of life for citizens in the present and future, as well as protect scarce resources and the environment.

Sounds to me more like a way for big corporations to profit by controlling government, and thus land use.

[BenIsForRon]

Exactly, but one of the things we have to ask is why is it so much cheaper to truck food all over?

One of the reasons is because our government subsidizes oil through direct subsidies AND more importantly through a vast global empire than costs nearly $1 trillion every year...

Gas prices would likely have been much higher, on average, over the last few decades which would have made local farm land more valuable.. the farm land became less valuable due to govt. subsidies in oil. So what BenIs4rp is trying to do is correct government intervention with more government intervention without realizing the government was the problem in the first place.

But I'm talking about local government, you're talking about federal, and sometimes state government. I totally agree that oil and agricultural subsidies are the primary reason we're in this mess, but that doesn't negate the fact that there is a real need for community-based land management.

Who the hell knows, maybe if we can stop the bullshit subsidies and related wars, then most of the sustainable local economy will fall in to place without ground rules set by the community. I doubt it would eliminate the need for zoning all together, but it would help more than anything else I can think of.

[dannno]

farm land became less valuable due to govt. subsidies in oil. So what BenIs4rp is trying to do is correct government intervention with more government intervention

I want to emphasize this point again..

BenIs4rp's main concern is that land used for farming becomes cheap enough to build houses on.. but the reason the land loses value is a direct result of govt. subsidies in the oil industry.

If we needed oil that bad, instead of investing in a global empire we should just pay more for it. Ultimately that is more efficient in the long-run, because as prices rise the people who control the oil become more willing to sell. The elite like to use taxpayer dollars to get cheap access to cheap oil, then increase their profit margins by controlling the market supply through cartels.

[dannno]

But I'm talking about local government, you're talking about federal, and sometimes state government. I totally agree that oil and agricultural subsidies are the primary reason we're in this mess, but that doesn't negate the fact that there is a real need for community-based land management.

Well what you should do is when you argue for local zoning ordinances you should specify that the only reason you believe we need them is because the Federal and State governments have manipulated the economy so much that it will be damaging to the local economies in the long run, and since people have more access and control over local governments you believe that some of these issues can be reversed..

I still think it is a bit dangerous to let even local governments pre-emptively control what land is used for because it is easy for monied interests to come in and make rules that favor their businesses rather than what is actually best for the people in the long-run. Then there is also the whole principle of private property ownership.

[ivflight]

Ben,

You are right, the free market players would not send a team of scientists, theologians, philosophers, and engineers to evaluate the land use. They would have realized that any marginal gain in land use efficiency was wiped out by the cost of the central planning.

But even your league of extraordinary gentlemen wouldn't be enough to determine how to best use the land. Obviously it isn't efficient to reserve a plot of land for farming if we don't plan on farming on it until 2028. We would have to perform a worldwide survey to see who might want to live in that area in the next 50 years, then have our phsyc team evaluate each of the candidates to see what products and services they might want. Then we would have to consider any products that might be produced or invented in the future (anywhere in the world) which will affect their buying decisions....I think you get my point.

[BenIsForRon]

I still think it is a bit dangerous to let even local governments pre-emptively control what land is used for because it is easy for monied interests to come in and make rules that favor their businesses rather than what is actually best for the people in the long-run.

You're partially right, because that is happening all over the country. Commercial interests have squashed other interests by manipulating town governments in a majority of the country. On the other hand, I can give you instances where communities have maintained their rural identity by protecting surrounding areas from large scale development.

It really is a touchy subject with some citizens too, as no one likes to be told what they can and can't do, but once they become educated on the underlying development pressures, and their effect on the structure of the community, they will usually support a community plan/zoning ordinance.

[dannno]

You're partially right, because that is happening all over the country. Commercial interests have squashed other interests by manipulating town governments in a majority of the country. On the other hand, I can give you instances where communities have maintained their rural identity by protecting surrounding areas from large scale development.

It really is a touchy subject with some citizens too, as no one likes to be told what they can and can't do, but once they become educated on the underlying development pressures, and their effect on the structure of the community, they will usually support a community plan/zoning ordinance.

Of course a lot of this large scale over-development is cause of the Fed easy credit policies..

[BenIsForRon]

Ben,

You are right, the free market players would not send a team of scientists, theologians, philosophers, and engineers to evaluate the land use. They would have realized that any marginal gain in land use efficiency was wiped out by the cost of the central planning.

But even your league of extraordinary gentlemen wouldn't be enough to determine how to best use the land. Obviously it isn't efficient to reserve a plot of land for farming if we don't plan on farming on it until 2028. We would have to perform a worldwide survey to see who might want to live in that area in the next 50 years, then have our phsyc team evaluate each of the candidates to see what products and services they might want. Then we would have to consider any products that might be produced or invented in the future (anywhere in the world) which will affect their buying decisions....I think you get my point.

That's not how effect community plans work. Keep in mind I'm using the work community plan because that's what any good zoning ordnance should be. An effective community plan evaluates the desires of local residents who have lived there for an extended period of time. They do this through a series of town halls, surveys, focus groups, and other methods. Environmental an economic issues are also studied, for example, with water tables and projected job growth, respectively. You then go over this gathered information with a team of planning technicians and other experts, and develop a plan. You then send this plan back through the public scrutiny process, and make adjustments until you have general consensus on how the community should move forward.

[BenIsForRon]

Of course a lot of this large scale over-development is cause of the Fed easy credit policies..

Indeed, but banks can still drive development on a case by case basis without the Fed. After all, they're generally the ones with the largest concentration of capital. Make a few strategic loans, and you've got yourself a mining town instead of an agrarian community.

[dannno]

Indeed, but banks can still drive development on a case by case basis without the Fed. After all, they're generally the ones with the largest concentration of capital. Make a few strategic loans, and you've got yourself a mining town instead of an agrarian community.

Well if you take eminent domain out of the equation, then if you have a prosperous agrarian community then you will have to pay more for the land, and the people who own it will need to agree to sell. If we have a good monetary system, then if a lot of the people in the community have saved money, so they aren't desperate for it, and they have invested in their land and are intent on staying.. For these reasons it will cost a lot more to buy out the town, and the bank will need to consider the higher price and whether it is worth it. If there is that much gold or whatever resource there, then the bank might decide that it is worth it, and the agrarian community can voluntarily sell their land at whatever they desire and in that way they will benefit from the new mining activity because they collected their dividend in the form of a high sales price on their land. They can then use that money to go buy land elsewhere and retire.

Whatever resource is being mined is expensive because the free market has determined it has high value, and so society who is using this resource is paying the farmers a premium to move so they can have it.

Now less food is being produced, so the price of food goes up. This encourages people near by to invest in a farm and produce more food to meet the demand...somewhere where there isn't a bunch of resources that society has a higher demand for.

[ivflight]

Ben,

You create a situation where you give government permission to meddle around, so you force everyone else to waste time giving input to your endeavour. Meanwhile most citizens would have to take a week off of work to actually verify the findings of the studies that you made them pay for, which, if we have learned anything, are likely tainted with the biases of a number of special interests.

Why should community members who have lived there longest have more say? When a new resident buys a house in the area did they not absorb the full land rights from the previous owner? Maybe you think for the first 10 years they should be probationary residents, then after 30 years they attain tenure? I think your idea of stacking up entitlements is going to make your central planning argument much much worse.

You also make the mistake of thinking that just because something is democratic it is right.

[BenIsForRon]

Now less food is being produced, so the price of food goes up. This encourages people near by to invest in a farm and produce more food to meet the demand...somewhere where there isn't a bunch of resources that society has a higher demand for.

Ideally, that's how it would work out. However, you've seen what situation abandoned mining towns can be left in. The community as a whole should come to an agreement on how the town should move forward, because a few big property owners selling out could ruin it for the majority of the rest of the town.


Ben,

You create a situation where you give government permission to meddle around, so you force everyone else to waste time giving input to your endeavour. Meanwhile most citizens would have to take a week off of work to actually verify the findings of the studies that you made them pay for, which, if we have learned anything, are likely tainted with the biases of a number of special interests.

Why should community members who have lived there longest have more say? When a new resident buys a house in the area did they not absorb the full land rights from the previous owner? Maybe you think for the first 10 years they should be probationary residents, then after 30 years they attain tenure? I think your idea of stacking up entitlements is going to make your central planning argument much much worse.

You also make the mistake of thinking that just because something is democratic it is right.

I shouldn't have just said long term residents, because all residents are consulted, and their opinions have equal weight. However, it is usually the long term residents who are most vocal and help build the public awareness of development problems. In the past, when plans like this have been developed, both long term residents and new residents were in agreement with the plan. Usually, the only ones disagreeing with the plans are people connected to development or industrial interests.

And the information gathering is done by members of the community, and the analysis is done in conjunction with experts who are generally hired from the outside to help develop the overall plan.

[ivflight]

Ben,

In your own post you describe some of the problems associated with your centralized planning scheme. You admit that some people will scream louder than others, still others won't be involved at all. You make the mistake of thinking that just because someone doesn't immerse themselves in your design, they must not be someone who will be affected by it's limitations.

Those who will benefit the most will handle the research and reports and be loudest. Everyone else will be hurt, but probably not enough for them to stray from work and life to attend all of your meetings. The overall effect will be negative.

I wish I knew what established plans you're holding up as models of success. My own local government is not one.

You haven't responded to my charge that democracy is not morality or even generally beneficial. I guess since you're only talking about pretend democracy where a tiny fraction of the population plans for the masses, it requires no response.

[BenIsForRon]

Democratic decision making on the local level is one of the most fair ways to develop a community plan.

The research is very organized and transparent, and encourages as many community members to participate as possible. The more that participate, the more legitimate the plan is. Like I've said, in communities that went through this democratic process to develop a plan, a vast majority support the plan.

An example: Manteo, North Carolina

The planning commission, in response to public pressure, created a special zoning ordinance designed around maintaining the rural, coastal character of the town. The townsfolk were worried about become a trashy tourist town. And rightfully so, I've been to a handful of them on the North Carolina and South Carolina coast.

Here is their zoning ordinance:

http://library1.municode.com/default-now/home.htm?infobase=14246&doc_action=whatsnew