This week’s “Daily Journal” guest columnist is Chad Adams, Director of the Center for Local Innovation and Vice President for Development at the John Locke Foundation.
Of North Carolina counties, Jackson County is quickly becoming the most antagonistic toward property rights. Since the fall 2006 election, commissioners led by former planner and environmental activist Tom Massie have orchestrated a moratorium on all new subdivisions and are proposing draconian ordinances. Both already are having a staggering effect on the area.
The reasons and rationale for such actions are well documented. No matter the county, the results are always the same: troubling.
Camden, Chatham, and Carteret counties have all seen similar tactics. Camden and Carteret had leaders wise enough to separate fear from fact. They repelled such maneuvering. Chatham is still moving inexorably away from property rights, continuing to believe that freedom is to be feared.
But what specifically is going on in Jackson County? The location is beautiful. It hosts the most photographed courthouse in the entire state, and it offers a haven for people looking to escape the fast pace of modern life.
Yet somehow the fine folks here have been convinced that their way of life is about to end. The culprits? Slope building and outsiders. The combination of these two elements, and concerns over water quality and erosion resulting from them, led to a fear that development and environmental damage were out of control. Such a sense of fear opened the door for aggressive action to “stop the insanity” (apologies to Susan Powter).
This is the same technique that has been used in countless other places. In these instances, the use of fear to instigate sweeping change is simply based on myths. In Carteret, environmentalists had convinced many of the local folks that growth was destroying their “culture.” In Camden, similar approaches were used to develop a “Smart Growth” approach to slow down growth in a county with only 31 folks per square mile. The truth in both situations is that there was no threat.
In Jackson County, the pandering is similar, and so is the reality. There have been no damaging landslides, and the water quality, in general, is higher than it was 30 years ago. In fact, growth in that area, according to the U.S. Census, was only 7.6 percent between 2000 and 2004.
But already the moratorium and the proposed ordinances are having a negative impact. Discussing the issues with local business leaders is akin to speaking with an area hit by a 100-year earthquake. Bank loans are down more than 50 percent from a year ago. Real estate sales are off by similar amounts. Home building is slowing dramatically. This will, in turn, lead to layoffs, a slowdown in sales revenues, and a dramatic increase in home prices as new homes will not be built.
Sadly, many locals tend to believe the new ordinances are good because slopes are dangerous. Yet they forget that these new ordinances will apply to them as well. If a tree damages their house, the new slope ordinance might affect their ability to rebuild. Certainly if they wish to sell part of their property to send their child to school or to pay for medical bills, that ordinance may render their property unusable. Removing this option amounts to a loss of freedom.
At a recent hearing on the matter, 1,300 people showed up. Most opposed the ordinance. The commission dismissed testimony from various people talking about the negative impact of the restrictions on their jobs and way of life. Even the reporter covering the story for the Sylva newspaper wrote the editor of Carolina Journal, who had been following the developments closely, to say that sometimes “sacrifices have to be made,” referring to people affected by the ordinance.
Property rights are a critical component of freedom. There is always the hope that some commissioners will agree with chairman Brian McMahan, who wants the county to take more time to evaluate the issue before voting. Being concerned about slopes and development is part of what elected officials should do, but they also should be concerned about property rights and their citizens’ freedom. Here’s hoping that the commission will consider the consequences of their action before July 19, when they vote on the issue.
The consequences could be far worse than what they’re trying to correct.