BACK TO ARCHIVE

"My" Property or "Our" Property?

I just finished reading a speech by P. H. O'Rourke, Cato Foundation Mencken Research fellow, advocating the role of individual freedom against the collectivists who "want to be better than other people in order to push the rest of us around." As a libertarian he believes in the "primacy of the individual, the sanctity of the individual, the freedom and responsibility of the individual because we are individuals. We are not ants or bees. We do not reason or love or live or die collectively." While reading I found myself nodding in agreement when I came across the crux of our land use problem that supports collective rule over the rights of the individual. "Voluntary good is done by individuals, for the benefit of individuals. Some of that voluntary good is going to be tasteless and dumb and shortsighted, of little value to mankind as a whole. But the ugliest strip mall is better than the most beautiful gulag."

Since we choose our representative form of democracy by the rule of the majority, we have now adopted a mental framework that collective entitlement is more important than the rights of the individual. Regardless of how you might feel about the outcomes of some of our future land use plans crafted by Sarasota city and county, you can't help but reflect on the process that showed greater concern for collective opinion than the rights of the individual.

In no instance was there recognition that the parties most affected (property owners), should first offer suggestions as to what they might want to do with their land in the future, followed by public comment. Sarasota is recognized around the world for the work done in the 1950's by the Sarasota School of Architecture. I wonder if today's collective wisdom were imposed upon the architects of Sarasota of the time if we would ever be recognized for such individual creativity? It is more than a little confusing that we live in a country where we are told that we have "property rights," and yet it seems that we have entered a time
when those rights are challenged by the "majority" based upon who holds "title" to what property. Let me explain.

Because the majority of people own automobiles, the individual rights to buy a gas-guzzler, travel alone, or blast out the speakers when stopped at an intersection, are not collectively challenged. Nor is there a requirement made that you open your home to the homeless so that they don't have to sleep on the streets. However, as the majority of us do not own large tracts of land or commercial property it has been selectively decided that collective rights over how that land be developed should rest in the hands of the "majority." Unfortunately, once the community decision as to land use has been vested with the collective process, it becomes more and more difficult for appointed and elected officials to deal fairly with the rules created by that collective decision.

Consultants hired by Sarasota local government, while updating land development regulations, told property owners that they had been charged by the County Commission to establish land regulations that give property owners the assurance that they can build to permitted densities. Currently most builders are not meeting the planned densities, not because the plan is bad, but because the "stipulations" are placed by the planning board and elected officials that prevent the property owners from building to the prescribed density. As a staff member stated, "we can do standards and regulations, but if our Boards continue to impose stipulations without recognizing competent and substantial testimony, we can tell you that drafting new regulations will not solve this problem." Let us be clear, our elected officials are imposing stipulations based upon a collective vocal chorus that belts out the greater value of their rights over that of the individual property owner, regardless of rule and regulation. Most reasonable people understand and have accepted governmental regulation to be a part of the fabric of their lives. What reasonable people object to is not being able to rely on established rules and regulations. Is it fair to expect that when land use issues are debated that the simple question be asked: Are we taking into account the right of the property owner?

Let us recognize the implicit Sarasota doctrine that continues to get local officials elected: government should prevent people from using their property in a way that is not in the public interest. Forgetting the fact that what is "not in the public interest" is redefined with each rezoning petition, most reasonable people would agree that zoning codes and land development regulations should be the rule of law. Rather than allowing the collective body to change those rules with each passing fancy with a portrayal that environmental protection and private property rights are mutually exclusive, our elected officials need to recognize that they may feel compelled to manage land use, but at the same time need to preserve and protect the rights of property owners. We have been fortunate in Sarasota to have had such good stewards of the land, who recognize that our quality of life is based upon that delicate balance between environment and development. To date that balance has taken place because our elected officials have recognized that zoning is an appropriate vehicle to manage land use and development. As new land development regulations get adopted we ask the elected officials to remind the public that the adopted rules are the rules that we play by. When testimony by the public is not competent, nor substantial, and constant changes are made to the rules that have been established, property owners have a right to be confused and upset. We expect our local government officials to balance these seemingly competing public interests. In the end it becomes the opportunity given elected officials - do what is right, not just what is seemingly popular.