We like to talk to folks as we travel. Fellow travelers, shop keepers, the maintenance workers in the campgrounds. We listen to local radio as we rumble down the highway. Some of the news and human interest stories they report are pretty funny, some is sad, some downright frightening. The local talk shows are particularly telling as you get a condensed version of local sentiment from the hosts and callers.
Beginning about three years ago, with a gentleman pacing the patio at Gruene Hall in Texas and approaching us as we sipped out beers, anxious to pour out all his concerns and worries about the country and 'the state of things'. Increasingly now, we have noticed how often people we meet in campgrounds or other public places quickly direct the conversation to things they are worried about. They seem preoccupied, ready to burst at times, eager for a sympathetic ear, or someone who will at least listen to them. In these conversations the topic of oppressive local regulation and the abuse of private property rights keeps cropping up. We also hear it on the radio and and see it in the local papers. People used to just talk about the weather and their grandchildren, now they're so worried and frustrated they just have to vent.
We keep hearing on the news and the commentary programs how "Federal regulation" is stifling business. Well, that isn't half the problem. In my view, it's local regulation and local pressure on person property rights that is driving people into the ground, and will eventually push them into a rage.
Just yesterday Steve talked to one of the county workers in the park here about the horror of getting the required building permits for a barn addition. He told about how the stress of the process gave his brother-in-law a heart attack, and caused him too to give up his dream project. We watched a friend here in Oregon lose his business because the city kept upping the demands for issuing permits and finally they asked more than he could afford, so he just quit. The individual examples are endless, but the story line is the same. Local regulation being used to weed out businesses that haven't garnered favor with local council members, or to increase agency revenue.
Andy, fellow traveler who blogs over on MyOldRV, had
some thoughts on the subject of excessive and illogical governmental regulation. His post went off in a slightly different aspect of the increasing governmental control we are all experiencing, but it's related. Andy's post was inspired by an assortment of news items all related to the breakdown of social behavior and the heavy-handed management of agencies involved with the Texas fires. The quote he included is what tied this all together for me.
“The right to be left alone is indeed the beginning of all freedoms.” - U.S. Supreme Court Justice William O. Douglas
I don't usually get political, or rant too much (on this blog anyway) but sometimes things just sort of pile up and you have to tie them all together. I guess that's what this post is, and I don't especially like what the package looks like.
The enforcement of local regulation has been used to issue high dollar citations to children running lemonade stands, and
families selling bunny rabbits (enough of them to be able to afford to go out to dinner now and then), and families
growing vegetables in their yards. Since when was it the business of local government to keep folks from making a little pocket money or putting food on the table?
The West was settled by people who braved horrible traveling conditions to arrive west of the Rockies. They looked around, saw a need, slapped a board over two nail kegs and set up shop - "2 loaves of bread, 25 cents". That's entrepreneurship. If the bread was good people came back and bought more. If the bread wasn't so good, they went somewhere else to buy it. That's free enterprise in action. No inspectors, no regulations, just people meeting the need and charging a reasonable rate. No one ever thought of fining them a few thousand dollars for not having the proper state and city licenses.
Yeah.
All this licensing and whatnot is to "protect". I know. I do understand the need for building codes and food safety regulations. I really do. But haven't all the salmonella and E.coli issues lately come from commercially licensed sources? Not lemonade stands!!!
One of the things that pushed me to comment on all of this was a video a friend sent us the other day.
The
"War on Desert Rats" in Antelope Valley, CA. As desert rats ourselves it really hit home.
Watch the "War on Desert Rats" video. At first you may think these are just a bunch of crazy folks with weird, unsafe houses and who cares..... but that's not the point. I looked at the Los Angeles County planning department to see what was behind it. They've produced a very nice two page brochure to explain their
Land Use Mapping Process.
You have to read carefully, as all this governmentese is carefully couched to sound nice and sunny but the intent is there. "We know how you should live. We have a nice, neat design in mind. We do not intend to allow you to interfere with our plans." It doesn't matter if you've owned and lived on the property for 25 years, have no neighbors, and aren't bothering anyone. If you don't fit in the plan, you're out.
Here, from their planning document, is the official way of saying it:
Step 6:
Spot Designations
Small pockets of land use designations inconsistent with the surrounding designations were created when the hazards, environmental constraints, and suitability factors were applied to individual properties. To minimize the potential for incompatible uses, these pockets were reanalyzed to ensure a more consistent land use pattern was developed without compromising the goals of Steps 1-5. Additionally, overarching land use policies provided the framework to eliminate any larger pockets of isolated land use designations incompatible with the Rural Preservation Strategy.
So who actually is doing all this "planning" in Antelope Valley? I think a little detail here would explain by example what is happening in many states.
Antelope Valley is an area in Los Angeles County, so the Los Angeles County Department of Regional Planning is responsible for all of the unincorporated areas of the county (2/3 of the county's 4,000 square miles). The agency has enforcement as well as planning responsibilities, and issues variances and permits. They also have a hearings division, so if you have complaints they'll look into the matter, then ignore you and continue as they were.
Now, the "unincorporated areas", what many of us would call "out in the sticks," are the places people go who just want to be left alone (back to Justice Douglas). They may be a little "unique" in the personality department, maybe they have a business or hobby that requires a little elbow room - like room to store the cars a mechanic is working on, for instance.
This is somehow seen as a threat to the environment. Using 'protecting the environment' as the rational, the planners want people closer to town so they don't have to drive (minimizing road maintenance), closer to public water sources (they really don't want you to have a private well they can't monitor), and clustered in developments of some type so they have "minimal impact on the environment". It's no accident that the video describing the plan development process shows housing tracts, not individual rural residences.
This post describing the situation in New Hampshire accurately describes the impact these idealistic policies have on individual landowners. "We like that view, so you can't cut down your trees", we can however, make sure the value of your property is reduced to the point that you just throw up your hands and walk away.
"But we have public hearings", the agencies protest, "People have a chance to let their voices be heard".
Yeah.
I attended a meeting of that type with friends in Beaverton, Oregon, regarding road improvements in their neighborhood. Those making the final decision clearly came to the meeting with their minds made up, and nothing the residents said would make a difference. The company producing the plan was missing, or ignoring, information they should have had, and had based their design on assumptions the residents found blatantly ridiculous.... but the plan went forth regardless of their opinions. Y
ou see, it's the plan that matters, not people's opinions. WE know what's best for you. So, sit down and be quiet. WE let you speak so you'd think you were involved (that's supposed to produce "stakeholder buy-in").
Land-use planning has become a modern substitute for the bossy neighbor lady hiding behind the lace curtain. It's people who want to manage your life because they don't approve of the way you choose to live. As the LA County Planning website puts it, they use the plan to identify and mitigate "the intrusion of illegal and objectionable uses." It's a system whereby a small group of individuals with no vested interest in certain properties can impose their will on others.
It's such an institutionalized system at this point that it may seem hopeless, but it isn't. The folks in Maine have had it with the planners and their stifling impact on local economy. They are working to disband or at least nip the fangs of the land use commission via the legislative process (
article here). Two out of their three measures where blocked but they are proceeding with a third that may be successful. Think about it - planners exist largely to create beautiful, ideal designs for land use that serve primarily to identify what people CAN'T do with their property. How productive is that?
I guess on the other hand it is 'job creation' of a sort. County and regional planning agencies generally employ large numbers of people. So they have jobs. They consume a lot of paper and other office supplies, so there's a few jobs there, and then there's the guy who repairs the copier machine, that's another job..... yeah. I guess they're productive after all.