Jefferson Review

"Your Liberty is Our Interest"

Home /  Archives / Search / Links / Quotes / Book Reviews / Advertise /Contact us / Subscribe / Calendar

Zoning - Is A Little Bit of Theft A Good Thing?

by Theresa Fritz Camoriano

          If we consider property rights as they were understood by Locke, Jefferson, Bastiat and other classical liberals, then we understand that each person has the right to do what he wishes with his own property as long as he does not infringe on his neighbor's similar right to the peaceful enjoyment of his property.  The common law has operated on that principle for hundreds of years, permitting the use of government force to prevent or remedy trespass and nuisance, but otherwise leaving people free to use their own property as they choose. Having that clear understanding of property rights, we also understand that any use of force to control property beyond what is granted by the common law is a form of theft, stealing rights that were previously owned by the property owner. So, for example, zoning laws, which provide very specific types of restrictions on the use of property, are a theft of property rights.  But most people would argue that zoning (or a little bit of theft) is a good thing.

          We may understand that zoning is a little bit of theft, but we are, above all, practical people.  If we have to engage in a little bit of theft in order to prevent our neighbors from doing unsuitable things with their property, most people would say that is fine.  Most people don't want their neighbor to be able to build an ugly or incompatible structure that would devalue their property.  Most people don't want their neighbor to be able to build a gas station or a porn shop or a pool hall.  They don't want a neighbor who parks junk cars or boats in the driveway.  Most people think zoning (or a little bit of theft) protects them from these bad things and therefore believe zoning is a good thing.

          The problem is, once you give up the clear common law standards of right and wrong and begin to endorse zoning's "little bit of theft" for practical purposes, you begin sliding down that infamous slippery slope.   Once control over the use of property becomes a bureaucratic/political decision rather than the decision of the property owner, who previously was restricted only by clear, objective standards, then anything goes.  Those in power will use their power to help their friends and plunder their enemies, allowing powerful people to use their property any way they choose, while severely restricting the use of property by people who do not wield power or influence.  If you are not one of the influential members of society, you may find that the zoning restrictions you thought were protecting your property values evaporate when a powerful person wants an exception made.  You also may find that, instead of restricting only your neighbor, the zoning laws will also restrict you -- preventing you from rebuilding your house if it is destroyed by fire, preventing you from working at home, or even preventing you from using your property at all, if those in power would prefer that your property be maintained in a park-like condition. 

          As with all forms of theft, zoning is an arrangement that enables the powerful to plunder the powerless.  This should come as no surprise.  After all, the first zoning laws were established in New York City as a means of discriminating against Irish immigrants at the time when shops posted signs saying "Irish need not apply here". 

          Political science professors will tell you that zoning is the greatest single corrupter of public officials.  Being able to control land use means that zoning boards have the power to greatly increase or decrease the value of property.  Property owners have a great incentive to influence the decisions of zoning boards, and people on zoning boards face a great temptation to allow themselves to be influenced.  So, once you endorse a little bit of theft by zoning, you are also encouraging the corruption that goes along with it. 

          The good news is that there are many ways to protect against incompatible land uses without stealing.  A group of people who agree that they want to live in a certain type of community can voluntarily put binding legal restrictions on the uses of their property.  This is commonly done in housing subdivisions and even industrial parks, where restrictive covenants are put on the property, limiting the uses to which the property can be put.  It can also be done in areas that are already built up, provided that the neighbors agree.  Also, a person or group of people may offer to pay a neighbor to put a restrictive covenant on his property if they wish to limit the uses to which that property will be put. 

          If an immoral or improper business is operating in your area, and you want to oppose it, you are certainly free to picket, boycott, and protest peacefully.  You may take pictures of the people who frequent the establishment and post them in fliers or on the Internet.  These are all forms of persuasion that continue to respect the property owner's rights while applying social pressure (not force) and making it clear that this use of property is not acceptable to the neighbors.  Of course, this requires more effort than just bringing in the police to shut down your neighbor's business, but treating people with respect often does require more effort than trampling over them.  As P.J. O'Rourke has said, "The ugliest strip-mall shopping development is better than the most beautiful gulag."

          Just as picking pockets and robbing convenience stores may be the easiest way to get what you want in the short run, zoning's "little bit of theft" is immoral and very harmful over the long haul.  Respect for private property rights is still the best policy.

Weather (Louisville) / Mapquest / Search / White Pages / Business Search / CNN / Dictionary / E-card / MSN