Zoning: Tough Question
9/27/96 11:00 PM Eastern Daylight Time
I think that zoning is the one of the tough question for the LP. I am not sure if the LP platform addresses this issue (pardon my ignorance), but for me, I think that there is clearly a need for the government to create restictions on propery rights. As a staw man, I suggest that the government (aka us) should be allowed complete lattitude in re-zoning property in the public interest. If rights are taken away, the owner should be compensated. Additional rights should be bought by the owner at a fair price. Any comments?
Subject: Re:Tough Question
Date: 9/28/96 4:30 PM Eastern Daylight Time
From: Presbyte
Message-id:
"I am not sure if the LP platform addresses this [zoning] issue (pardon my ignorance)..." -BiosGuy
Of course, it is very easy to consult the platform, either by downloading it or going directly to the web-based hypertext version. Direct buttons for either route are provided here in the LP Forum, and I encourage everyone interested in debating Libertarian topics to use them! :-)
Here are two relevant excerpts, that I pulled up in less than two minutes, from the browsable, hypertext version. -Jim Merritt, LP Forum Host, AOL Politics Channel
THE RIGHT TO PROPERTY There is no conflict between property rights and human rights. Indeed, property rights are the rights of humans with respect to property, and as such, are entitled to the same respect and protection as all other human rights. All rights are inextricably linked with property rights. Such rights as the freedom from involuntary servitude as well as the freedom of speech and the freedom of press are based on self-ownership. Our bodies are our property every bit as much as is justly acquired land or material objects. We further hold that the owners of property have the full right to control, use, dispose of, or in any manner enjoy, their property without interference, until and unless the exercise of their control infringes the valid rights of others. We oppose all violations of the right to private property, liberty of contract, and freedom of trade done in the name of national security. We also condemn current government efforts to regulate or ban the use of property in the name of aesthetic values, riskiness, moral standards, cost-benefit estimates, or the promotion or restriction of economic growth. We specifically condemn all government interference in the operation of private businesses, such as restaurants and airlines, by either requiring or prohibiting designated smoking or non-smoking areas for their employees or their customers. We demand an end to the taxation of privately owned real property, which actually makes the State the owner of all lands and forces individuals to rent their homes and places of business from the State. We condemn attempts to employ eminent domain to municipalize sports teams or to try to force them to stay in their present location. Where property, including land, has been taken from its rightful owners by the government or private action in violation of individual rights, we favor restitution to the rightful owners.
RESOURCE USE Resource management is properly the responsibility and right of the legitimate owners of land, water, and other natural resources. We oppose government control of resource use through eminent domain, zoning laws, building codes, rent control, regional planning, urban renewal, or purchase of development rights with tax money. Such regulations and programs violate property rights, discriminate against minorities, create housing shortages, and tend to cause higher rents.
Subject: Re:Tough Question
Date: 10/1/96 12:42 AM Eastern Daylight Time
From: Dangfitz
Message-id:
>>> I think that zoning is the one of the tough question for the LP. I am not sure if the LP platform addresses this issue (pardon my ignorance), but for me, I think that there is clearly a need for the government to create restictions on propery rights. As a staw man, I suggest that the government (aka us) should be allowed complete lattitude in re-zoning property in the public interest. <<
One word: Houston.
Subject: Re:Tough Question
Date: 10/1/96 1:02 PM Eastern Daylight Time
From: BIOSGUY
Message-id:
Fitz,
I assume you are citing Houston as a positive example of no or little zoning. Other examples are Hong Kong and Taipei. From these examples, I am not sure that I like no zoning.
-Bruce
Subject: Re:Tough Question
Date: 10/4/96 5:00 AM Eastern Daylight Time
From: Dangfitz
Message-id:
>>> I assume you are citing Houston as a positive example of no or little zoning. Other examples are Hong Kong and Taipei. From these examples, I am not sure that I like no zoning. <<
These three cities have some of the highest per-capita incomes on the face of the planet. I haven't heard of any hideous problems associated with people using their proerty as they see fit: so long as they don't violate anyone else's property rights. What is it you object to?
Subject: Re:Tough Question
Date: 10/5/96 6:34 AM Eastern Daylight Time
From: Jazzsweat
Message-id:
Dangfitz,
You said and asked, >
My answer would be ... environmental degradation.
No planning = unsustainable development.
Jazzsweat in Tampa
Subject: Re:Tough Question
Date: 10/5/96 8:44 PM Eastern Daylight Time
From: LEBarber
Message-id:
< No planning = unsustainable development. >>
I don't suppose you would be interested in providing any proof for this statement. As far as I can tell it is simply an unsupported assertion that environmentalists use to justify their attempts to run my life.
Larry Barber
Subject: Re: Re:Tough Question
Date: 2/12/97 8:43 PM Eastern Daylight Time
From: BKS III
Message-id: <19970213004301.TAA18774@ladder01.news.aol.com>
< No planning = unsustainable development. >>
I beg to differ. I ofer a new equation.
Planning = the politically connected get to dictate use of land they do not own.
Subject: Re: Re:Tough Question
Date: 4/2/97 12:34 PM Eastern Daylight Time
From: ChrisToto
Message-id: <19970402163400.LAA14697@ladder01.news.aol.com>
Subj: Re: Re:Tough Question
Date: Wed, 2 April 1997
From: ChrisToto
BKS,
regarding your equation (of feb 12 1997):
Planning = the politically connected get to dictate use of land they do not own,
I agree completely.
I live in NJ. I don't know if you're familiar with any of the recent history of this state, but in the 1970's the then democratic governor Brendan Byrne pushed through what was called the "Pinelands Moratorium." Byrne was a north Jersey demagogueic statist politician of the worst sort who foisted the environmental pet project of his idealogue pals (most of whom lived in the convenience of either developed suburban north Jersey or NYC which to this day still pumps raw sewage into the bay adjacent to the Jersey coast).
The "Pinelands Moratorium" amounted to a coerced multi-county zoning in the New Jersey pine barrens from local control which was previously a relatively free rural uncontrolled approach changed to a minimum of 14 acres per single residence requirement. My father owned 11 acres from before the act went into effect; he had intended to subdivide into 3 or 4 parcels to make a "colony" for his family. His development rights were summarily "taken" with no real compensation.
This stunk very similar to the liberals being very "liberal" and generous with giving away other people's money, property, rights etc. "at the point of a gun." It also stank from the perspective of the populous north Jersey forcing their political will on poorer, less developed and less Democratic south Jersey. And this has to this day stunted development of south Jersey. Does this mean that all development in the Pine Barrens has stopped? No, it just means that only the huge corporations who can afford the lawyers and afford dedicated sewage treatment complexes can compete. Interestingly enough, many law firms who support the north Jersey Democratic machines get alot of the waiver business in the Pines. The small contractor without clout is "out."
As I alluded to before, this act was heavily supported by probably the densest population of environmentalists in the world, who live cozily in NYC, and their mouthpiece the NY Times. I find the image of these pontificating environmentalists most interesting and ironic. Just envision this: while your average NYC environmentalist sits on his toilet in NYC and reads his Sunday NY Times editorials, his own personal effluent is being pumped raw out to the bay which pollutes New Jersey shores. Meanwhile New Jersey municipalities which are very dependent on tourist/shore business spend millions on secondary and sometimes even tertiary treatment of their sewage!
I was only in high school when this atrocity occurred but I did write several protest letters using my primitive (at that time) libertarian knowledge and communication abilities. But my letters were like a whisper in the din compared to all the pro-Moratorium propaganda. Hardly a Republican protested as far as I can remember.
I am sending this note to you both by the board method and by email because I can't tell if this board mechanism is working properly. Please let me know if you have heard of this Pinelands Moratorium (on construction) or what you think of it or similar events in your area.
ChrisToto@aol.com
Subject: Re: Re:Tough Question
Date: 4/15/97 12:38 AM Eastern Daylight Time
From: Dfrankrob1
Message-id: <19970415033800.XAA07709@ladder01.news.aol.com>
Chris, it's everywhere. I remember the downtown business district of Oklahoma City when I was a child, but in my teens the idea of "urban renewal" came down and the destruction was worse than the OKC bombing - as for the the loss of life, I have no data. At present, OKC is being taxed a quarter-billion dollars to build a baseball park, a hockey dome, a fau-river front walk, and to rehabilitate the ugly and aging buildings from the urban renewal binge. If you think Oklahoma is politically an economic libertarian state, think again. Oklahoma "conservatives" are slobbering socialist - just as long as it's "local". The elite always have schemes for civic betterment that just happens to rob the middle class of their property. The poor, they think, can always go to work as maintenance workers in public facilities.
Subject: Re:Tough Question
Date: 10/5/96 9:16 PM Eastern Daylight Time
From: Jazzsweat
Message-id:
LEBarber,
Sure, it's called extinction, habitat loss, biodiversity loss and using up resourses that are practically free.
Thanks for asking,
Jazzsweat in Tampa
Subject: Re:Tough Question
Date: 10/6/96 9:19 PM Eastern Daylight Time
From: LEBarber
Message-id:
>
But there is no evidence that planned economies are any better at preventing these things than free markets. In fact there is a good deal of evidence that planned economies perform much worse than free markets in this regard. Consider the habitat destruction and the like in eastern Europe and Russia under the Communists with their planned economies. Also, I cannot think of one natural resource that has been "used up" that wasn't being held "in common", that is, by the government.
Historically, planned economies also have a much worse record in creating sustained development than free markets, it is not even necessary to look at former Communist countries, just consider Great Britains's experiment with socialism after WWII, and what is sometimes referred to as the "European disease" in business and economic writings. The "European disease" is characterized by slow or no growth, high unemployment, and a tremendous burden imposed on the citizenry, both in the form in regulations and taxes. It is not a sustainable state.
Also, since it takes a majority (more or less) to pass the laws that would govern a "planned economy" why do you suppose that the people acting on their own would perform so much worse than a government program. Or do you propose replacing it with a system where we are ruled ruled by philosopher-ecologist kings? To paraphrase Harry Brown: "The EPA is just the post office of the environment".
Larry Barber
Subject: Re:Tough Question
Date: 10/7/96 9:26 AM Eastern Daylight Time
From: Jazzsweat
Message-id:
OK, you've convinced me,
we shouldn't plan.
Jazzsweat in Tampa
Subject: Re:Tough Question
Date: 10/7/96 2:10 PM Eastern Daylight Time
From: Dangfitz
Message-id:
>>> I haven't heard of any hideous problems associated with people using their proerty as they see fit: so long as they don't violate anyone else's property rights. What is it you object to?>>
My answer would be ... environmental degradation.
No planning = unsustainable development.
Jazzsweat in Tampa<<
Precisely why I moved out of Florida. Too many people on a sandbar, the water issues alone are insurmountable at that density, and by just being there you're killing mangroves, Manatees, and living Coral Reefs.
Subject: Re:Tough Question
Date: 10/9/96 3:42 AM Eastern Daylight Time
From: WaltFT
Message-id:
In other words, if you and I don't like what our neighbor is doing with his property, we should be able to force him to do otherwise as a matter of moral right?
Subject: Re:Tough Question
Date: 10/12/96 12:43 AM Eastern Daylight Time
From: Randomthot
Message-id:
I've watched this discussion for several weeks now in both this and the "Property Rights" forum because in my opinion it's one of the more difficult issues facing libertarians. I'll admit that I was pretty young at the time it was enacted but I'd be hard pressed to call the Clean Air & Water Act a dismal government failure. If memory serves the environment was pretty screwed up. I doubt that big oil, chemical, and other manufacturing companies were overly concerned with pollution compared with profits. For crying out loud Lake Erie was so full of crap it caught fire! (Unless that's an urban myth) The bottom line is that I like a clean environment. I think its important to pass that on to future generations. It used to be a lot dirtier, Congress pass the Act, now it's a lot cleaner. I'm very leary of tossing out one of the few things government has done that seems to have actually worked. I've come to the opinion that libertarianism, like any other political philosophy is fine as long as you don't take it too far. Take the Republican desire to regulate and limit personal behavior and morality for example. Isn't the LP position prohibiting harming others a moral position worthy of government force? Same for basic property rights for that matter. Same for the democratic idea of community responsibility for those who can't fend for themselves. If it were limited to only those who TRULY can't care for themselves or have family to help, the cost would be so low that it just wouldn't be an issue. The problem with the Dems and Reps is that they have taken these worthwhile concepts and extended them way, way, way too far. I believe the same applies to Libertarian concepts and ideals. Specifically, the paradigm that states that the Free Market is the cure for all ills can, and is in these forums, taken to absurd lengths. In this particular case the problem is that the environment isn't specifically an economic issue. It's actually a moral issue with economic ramifications. (More on this later) Randomthot
Subject: Re:Tough Question
Date: 10/12/96 4:34 PM Eastern Daylight Time
From: Dangfitz
Message-id:
I am in a discussion with someone on another board about Cape Cod: it seems that the military had a refinery of some sort there which has polluted the ground (drinking) water. I pointed out that the government caused the problem, and now wants to tax us more to fix it. Someone asked a valid question: who pays to clean up the mess the militery caused? My view is that the military caused it, it should clean it up: but that's a government solution, ain't it? Any alternative solutions?
Subject: Re: Re:Tough Question
Date: 2/15/97 9:07 PM Eastern Daylight Time
From: J39 Gripen
Message-id: <19970216010701.UAA13901@ladder01.news.aol.com>
>My view is that the military caused it, it should clean it up: but that's a government solution, ain't it? Any alternative solutions?<
How about selling hard assets (like the 75+% of the Western USA the feds "own") to private citizens to pay for the clean-up?
BTW, I see this as a solution to the national debt also. The fringe benefit is that it gets lots of American land out of the hands of government and into the hands of the individual citizens, where it belongs.
Subject: Re:Tough Question
Date: 10/12/96 4:34 PM Eastern Daylight Time
From: Dangfitz
Message-id:
I am in a discussion with someone on another board about Cape Cod: it seems that the military had a refinery of some sort there which has polluted the ground (drinking) water. I pointed out that the government caused the problem, and now wants to tax us more to fix it. Someone asked a valid question: who pays to clean up the mess the militery caused? My view is that the military caused it, it should clean it up: but that's a government solution, ain't it? Any alternative solutions?
Subject: Re: Re:Tough Question
Date: 2/15/97 9:07 PM Eastern Daylight Time
From: J39 Gripen
Message-id: <19970216010701.UAA13901@ladder01.news.aol.com>
>My view is that the military caused it, it should clean it up: but that's a government solution, ain't it? Any alternative solutions?<
How about selling hard assets (like the 75+% of the Western USA the feds "own") to private citizens to pay for the clean-up?
BTW, I see this as a solution to the national debt also. The fringe benefit is that it gets lots of American land out of the hands of government and into the hands of the individual citizens, where it belongs.
Subject: Re:Tough Question
Date: 10/13/96 1:22 AM Eastern Daylight Time
From: WaltFT
Message-id:
With due respect, Randomthot, I was also alive and young when all the events you described were reported, and I can't see a gnat's bit of difference between the water today and the water yesterday. And as for the air...well, here in Connecticut, as you well know, we still suffer from massive pollution "flown" in from NYC and NJ. Most people I know suffer from chronic post-nasal drip. I suspect you know a few, too.
In short, the Air & Water Acts have done nothing tangibly good in my life.
Subject: Re:Tough Question
Date: 10/14/96 10:54 PM Eastern Daylight Time
From: Randomthot
Message-id:
Walt, Well, I disagree. Perhaps I've been duped by the media -- if I was 20 years older I'd have a better perspective on that aspect of it due to the fact that I can't really remember "before" the CA & W Act. What I've seen are pictures and I read a hell of a lot -- mostly science magazines. However, I'm not a big fan of the EPA. I think the larger question is can we/how do we/should we try to deal with environmental issues from a Libertarian perspective. I believe it's ridiculously naive to think that if we just repeal all the laws and abolish the EPA that suddenly all, or at least most, folks will behave in environmentally responsible ways. I took Econ 101 in college too (actually I minored in Economics, my major was mechanical engineering but the Econ profs wanted me to switch) and the one absolute bottom line for businesses are Profit$. Profits naturally enough are maximized by minimizing costs and maximizing revenue; no brain surgery there. Absent external (i.e. government) restraint there is no motive, other than one's own sense of morality, to make the additional expenditures necessary to prevent the byproducts of industry (or for that matter just day to day living) from fouling the environment. Unless the owner of the mfg plant lives downstream from and draws his drinking water from the river in which the pollutants are being dumped, he has no particular motivation to clean up his act. I believe an appropriate Libertarian solution to this problem can be formulated if we are willing to construct a theory of property rights recognizing the existence of communal ownership of such resources as air and water. This would allow groups such as the Sierra Club to file class action lawsuits against polluters on behalf of the citizens of the U.S. The role of government in this would be to legislatively define these resource rights and also to define "prima facia" (if that's the right term) harm from various levels and types of pollution. No EPA would be needed. Just private citizens exercising their legal right to file suit. The problem of resource depletion and general ecological degradation requires a somewhat different conceptual approach. In the case of water flowing down a river it's easy to see how the actions of an upstream neighbor can violate your (downstream) property rights. I submit to you all the following question: Just as it can be shown that you don't have the right to dump crap in the river for your downstream neighbor to deal with, do we, those of us living today, have the right to irrevocably alter the natural environment for our neighbors downstream of us in time? In other words, future generations? How do we protect the property rights of those who ain't here yet? Can we? Should we try? How about the rights of those who are here but just can't participate in these decisions yet (like my 7-year old daughter)? So far I've found Libertarian thought to be a little selfish and short-sighted in this regard. I don't mean to offend but that's the feeling I get.
Randomthot
Subject: Re:Tough Question
Date: 10/18/96 10:42 PM Eastern Daylight Time
From: WaltFT
Message-id:
I think you have some good points there Randomthot, but we definitely disagree about how clean the water and air are today.
Subject: Quickies
Date: 9/5/96 3:06 AM Eastern Daylight Time
From: CatDrugInn
Message-id:
To WaltFT: I know you disagree, but I would argue that for all the failures of civil rights legislation, such laws have helped us to make progress toward equality. It's harder to get away with discrimination against minorities in 1996 than in 1966 -- even though I agree discrimination and racism are still rampant. Many would argue that it's much easier to get away with discriminating against the majority in 1996, and I would agree -- standing for civil rights legislation does not mean one must stand for reverse discrimination.
To BrettG 23: I hope you're right that the profit motive transcends racism, but I just don't think so. I truly believe there's a class system in this country, and the ruling class (which is far more complex than to be described as "WASP" or even "white" but nonetheless exists) hasa an interest in excluding everyone else from the benefits of capitalism.
To Presbyte: If we subscribe to your position, we'd never be able to do ANYTHING in this country. Want the county government to take your garbage away? Not if one person objects!
To CheffJeff: I find your disengenuous attack discouraging. There may indeed be inconsistencies in my views -- as there are in most people's -- but to attack me as being "dishonest" for attempting to get into a discussion of substance displays close-mindedness of Rush Limbaugh proportions.
To BKS III: I would never argue that government is not a contributor to all our problems, but I would argue that this fact is unavoidable. And yes, if we reduce government to a minimum, its contribution to the evils in our society would also be reduced -- but the fact is that government also does a few good things. For instance, I strongly support the existence of such watchdog agencies as the FDA or the NTSB, even if they are not perfect and often complicate things far beyond necessity -- but that's a problem of execution, not principle. Yes, the government's role in such things as business licenses does open up the possibility (or inevitability) of abuse, but I would argue that eliminating all such licensing systems would create more problems than it would solve.
This country was founded upon one principle as much as any other: compromise. Just because government causes multiple problems does not mean the solution is no government at all -- both extremes cause problems. The trick is finding the right balance. I agree entirely that the current political reality is far too much weighted toward government power, but what I've been arguing is that the LP position would swing the pendulum too far in the other direction.
Subject: Re:Quickies
Date: 9/5/96 5:34 PM Eastern Daylight Time
From: Presbyte
Message-id:
"To Presbyte: If we subscribe to your position, we'd never be able to do ANYTHING in this country. Want the county government to take your garbage away? Not if one person objects!" -CatDrugInn
Are you deliberately missing my point and arguing against something I have not said, or are you simply mistaken? You seem to be responding to my "gun-to-the-head" exercise in a completely extreme fashion. I ask everyone to judge FOR THEMSELVES the morality of voting to do X by asking whether they would use a gun to have X done. I suggest that if you can't answer the question in the affirmative, you have no justification other than "I wanna" for voting for X.
As a matter of fact, it is NOT necessary to fund municipal services via taxation. In my own home town, garbage is collected by private contractors, and individual households pay to have their garbage hauled. You don't have to use the service. Most people do, because it is convenient and cheap. I'm just happy that it is PRIVATE! This is the proper way to handle things that you wouldn't use a gun to provide! (And it is certainly the civilized way, whenever and wherever possible, to provide services even when you'd be willing to use a gun... :-)
-J
Subject: Re:Quickies
Date: 9/5/96 9:49 PM Eastern Daylight Time
From: WaltFT
Message-id:
CatDrugInn: I know that you claim that, ..."for all the failures of civil rights legislation, such laws have helped us to make progress toward equality." But where's your evidence? As I pointed out, the existence of improvements is much more likely to be associated with the decency of many people than with any government programs. Can you offer any evidence to the contrary?
Subject: Re:Quickies
Date: 9/5/96 5:34 PM Eastern Daylight Time
From: Presbyte
Message-id:
"To Presbyte: If we subscribe to your position, we'd never be able to do ANYTHING in this country. Want the county government to take your garbage away? Not if one person objects!" -CatDrugInn
Are you deliberately missing my point and arguing against something I have not said, or are you simply mistaken? You seem to be responding to my "gun-to-the-head" exercise in a completely extreme fashion. I ask everyone to judge FOR THEMSELVES the morality of voting to do X by asking whether they would use a gun to have X done. I suggest that if you can't answer the question in the affirmative, you have no justification other than "I wanna" for voting for X.
As a matter of fact, it is NOT necessary to fund municipal services via taxation. In my own home town, garbage is collected by private contractors, and individual households pay to have their garbage hauled. You don't have to use the service. Most people do, because it is convenient and cheap. I'm just happy that it is PRIVATE! This is the proper way to handle things that you wouldn't use a gun to provide! (And it is certainly the civilized way, whenever and wherever possible, to provide services even when you'd be willing to use a gun... :-)
-J
Subject: Re:Quickies
Date: 9/5/96 9:49 PM Eastern Daylight Time
From: WaltFT
Message-id:
CatDrugInn: I know that you claim that, ..."for all the failures of civil rights legislation, such laws have helped us to make progress toward equality." But where's your evidence? As I pointed out, the existence of improvements is much more likely to be associated with the decency of many people than with any government programs. Can you offer any evidence to the contrary?
Subject: Re:Quickies
Date: 9/6/96 11:56 AM Eastern Daylight Time
From: CheffJeff
Message-id:
Cat, In reference to your recent posting--just look at the responses they're generating. We're all learning so much! You said that I attacked you disengenuously (I had to look it up--it means insincere or lack of frankness). Just so you understand, I first of all, attacked your dishonest ideas, not you personally. And second, I am as sincere and frank as I can possibly be. I really do thank you for your postings. Without them, and those like them, this board would be a waste of time as we just "preached to the choir". Only by challenging our beliefs can we each build honest concepts toward their maximums. Then those concepts can be integrated with other honest concepts to forever build a greater and greater understanding of the universe. I must respond to your FDA remark in your posting of 9-5-96. You said you "strongly support the existence of such watchdog agencies as the FDA..." The Food and Drug Administration, headed by Dr. Kessler deceives many by appearing to protect the health of Americans. But in reality the FDA is responsible for killing more citizens than any other group of the "ruling class"--your term, I call them The elite parisites. The FDA power-stealing regulations block the cures of all major diseases (AIDS, cancer, even death itself). Only unhindered science and business can bring disease-free non-aging longevity.* BTW, I am TOTALLY sincere about this, too. Abiding happiness can be eternal. I would answer some of your other inconsistencies but so many others are doing it so well. Sincerely, Jeff PS *The methods I use (that you called disengenuous) to protect the honesty of the libertarian message (see my similar postings to others, besides you) can be yours just for the taking. I got it from the Neo-Tech Protection Kit. I use it in many situations, not just on-line. There's a web page that can lead you to this life-saving info. It's WWW.neo-tech.com/zonpower/
Subject: Re:Quickies
Date: 10/3/96 9:28 AM Eastern Daylight Time
From: DCarlsten
Message-id:
>To Presbyte: If we subscribe to your position, we'd never be able to do ANYTHING in this >country. Want the county government to take your garbage away? Not if one person objects!
I do not wish for the county government to take my garbage away. I pay a private company to do so, very efficiently, and at less cost than a municipality can do so. I am very aware of the costs of a local govt. doing this because I recieve the trade publications. I can make the promise that I will not allow my city to take up this "responsibility" ... at least not during my "watch"
Doug
Subject: Whatever became of CELLO?
Date: 9/9/96 4:22 AM Eastern Daylight Time
From: StevenHW
Message-id:
Does anyone know who's in charge of CELLO? That the "Committee to Elect Libertarians to Local Office", a support group for Libertarians who have run (or going to run) for non-partisan offices. I read somewhere that a guy named Al Starr was in charge a few years ago, but I haven't heard from him nor the group lately. Are they still around? What their address or e-mail (if they have any?)
Anybody here knows about it? Thanks!
Subject: Tough Question
Date: 9/27/96 11:00 PM Eastern Daylight Time
From: BIOSGUY
Message-id:
I think that zoning is the one of the tough question for the LP. I am not sure if the LP platform addresses this issue (pardon my ignorance), but for me, I think that there is clearly a need for the government to create restictions on propery rights. As a staw man, I suggest that the government (aka us) should be allowed complete lattitude in re-zoning property in the public interest. If rights are taken away, the owner should be compensated. Additional rights should be bought by the owner at a fair price. Any comments?
Subject: Zoning
Date: 9/29/96 2:15 AM Eastern Daylight Time
From: PatJDixon
Message-id:
Another thought on zoning;
There are two way of acheiving the same results as zoning without violating property rights. One way is through home owners associations. In this case, being a member of the association means abiding by its rules, which may include preventing someone from setting up a car repair garage on your street or not selling their property to a grocery store. Another way is to simply buy land. This approach is being taken by some individuals in Sedona, Arizona to prevent their homes from being encroached upon by commerce.
Both methods avoid government intervention in these affairs.
Subject: Re:Zoning
Date: 9/29/96 11:15 AM Eastern Daylight Time
From: CheffJeff
Message-id:
Houston, Texas has no zoning laws and it's the 5th biggest city in the US. Radio talk show host, Bruce Williams, has been on a zoning board or two and he steadfast against zoning. Zoning is great if your on the board and enjoy depriving people of their property rights. Jeff
Subject: Re: Zoning
Date: 10/5/96 12:12 AM Eastern Daylight Time
From: LEBarber
Message-id:
Another point regarding city zoning as regards Hong Kong and Taipei, I doubt that any zoned city could have handled the huge influx of refugees in as an efficient and prosperous manner as these cities (especially Hong Kong) if they could have handled it at all. It would take years for a typical zoning board to handle one month of the immigration that Hong Kong was handling. When you consider the skill and educational levels of these immigrants what Hong Kong has achieved is truly amazing. It will be, in a morbid way, interesting to see how long it takes Peking to ruin it after 1997.
Larry
Subject: Re: Zoning
Date: 10/16/96 9:26 AM Eastern Daylight Time
From: DCarlsten
Message-id:
I can see by reading posts here, that this is indeed a "tough question". I'm dealing w/it daily, both as councilman, and member of (believe it or not) planning and zoning commission.
I've recognized that I won't be able to take my city out of the planning and zoning biz very soon but I'll keep working on it! It's interesting that whenever an issue comes up that is not very popular with the neighborhood... are the only times we have much participation at meetings. During public hearings over a bus barn for the local school dist., and an application for a dog kennel in a residential area, they filled the room with 200 or more neighbors... screaming for protection from the city from these horrible things bieng built down the street from their homes! not in my back yard!
I've tried to keep libertarian principals in the discussion, and in my own mind as these things come up.
Doug
Subject: Re: Zoning
Date: 10/22/96 12:55 AM Eastern Daylight Time
From: PatJDixon
Message-id:
In response to DCarlsten,
I am interested in how you handle these situations. Is it possible to tell these residents of these neighborhoods that they could purchase the land that surrounds them (without getting lynched)?
Subject: Re: Zoning
Date: 10/23/96 9:41 AM Eastern Daylight Time
From: DCarlsten
Message-id:
>From: PatJDixon
>In response to DCarlsten,
>I am interested in how you handle these situations. Is it possible to tell these residents of these >neighborhoods that they could purchase the land that surrounds them (without getting lynched)?
Do you have the funds available to purchase the parcel of land next to your neighborhood (maybe if the govt. didnt take so much you might)? If you owned the parcel and you felt you could develop it into something and realize a profit, what are your rights. If the neighborhood buys the parcel,,, what about the parcel next to that? And the next?
I spent last night going over an application for a "Manufactured housing" developement near my own neighborhood. One of the other councilmembers brought up the idea that if there a vote of the neighborhood they probably wouldn't want that "Trailer park" by their homes. I pointed out that the guy who owns the property to be developed is also a citizen and had a right to do what he can w/his property to make a profit from the money he has invested in the property. Does govt. have the duty to ensure that he doesn't "steal" property values from the surrounding neighborhood???
I've been pushing for some of the agricultural folks around town to donate conservation easments to non profits such as the nature conservancy.
Doug
Subject: Re: Zoning
Date: 10/24/96 1:02 AM Eastern Daylight Time
From: PatJDixon
Message-id:
In regard to DCarlsten's issue of the next door trailer park effecting property values:
Here's what I think about the property value thing; people tend to think that they have a "right" to their property value. This is like having a "right" to the value of the shares of stock they own. If you buy a house as an investment, then it is your responsibility to make certain that the investment you make is protected. I own a home, and I realize that my property value could go up or down depending on who my neighbors are, how well they keep their yard, whether a new freeway is built nearby, etc. Fortunately, my location is in pretty good shape. For those truly concerned, a homeowners association is one way to go. Another is to buy lots of surrounding land. Another is to to rent. These are choices that the free market makes available.
Government has a role in cases of vandalism, which directly and physically depreciates a property, but I do not feel it has a role in protecting property value.
Subject: Re: Zoning
Date: 10/25/96 12:25 AM Eastern Daylight Time
From: BHees
Message-id:
PatJDixon>
And, of course, be careful when you buy. Find out who owns the undeveloped lot across the street from your prospective purchase, and find out what their intentions are, etc.
this website copyright scars publications and design. All rights reserved. No material may be reprinted without express permission from the author.
this page was downloaded to your computer