Planning, zoning, annexation, and eminent domain are the issues on the frontlines of the property-rights debate in North Carolina. Intended for the betterment of communities, zoning is probably the most difficult of issues to understand. In simple terms, I’ve always viewed zoning as where your rights end and your neighbor’s begin. This is where we are losing the most ground on the property-rights battle as we move slowly and inexorably toward a more collective mentality and away from individual freedom.
Camden County is a good example of where good intentions have gone horribly awry. Archie and Patricia Sawyer had been living in a family home for decades. The home was destroyed by fire. In the fire, they lost their pet and Archie was injured, leaving him with five days of skin grafts to repair his burnt hands. Returning home (actually vacant land) the Sawyers decided to live in a tent until they could replace their home. In fact, four generations of Sawyers had been on the property.
Unable to afford a new traditional home, they wanted to put a doublewide mobile home on their property. But zoning forbade it. Thus the only way the couple could get a mobile home onto the property was to rezone the property. Zoning officials weren’t happy about the proposal and the planning board rejected their request unanimously.
Yes, mobile homes are being eliminated, not for lack of need (affordable housing) but because they’re not pretty, in the eyes of strong zoning advocates.
Sawyer took his case to the county commissioners, where the staff attorney advised against helping the Sawyers. He said that the move was a “spot zoning” and that it would open the county up to all sorts of problems. Such a move would upset neighbors as well, he said.
But the Sawyers had friends and neighbors on their side. More than 170 of them signed a petition in favor of the Sawyers’ request and many of the petitioners showed up at the hearing. The commissioners were moved and the spot zoning was allowed.
Depending on your perspective, this is or isn’t a good story. But the point is that we’ve come a long way from having freedom on “your” personal property. Ordinances and zones and setbacks and a myriad of fees and regulations prevent a great deal of freedom. With the spot zoning in effect in Camden, the rest of the county is still forbidden to own mobile homes, depending on the zoning.
In Raleigh, Smithfield Chicken N Bar-B-Que was fined $17,000 for pruning its trees improperly. Yes, they owned the trees, and the fine is outrageous. In Jackson County, new regulations might have an impact on the colors homeowners may use to paint their homes. In Sanford, signs more than 6 square feet in size are forbidden. Personal signs, regardless of size, in your yard are also forbidden.
Simply put, the erosion of personal liberty is being replaced by the will of the collective.
Along interstate highways, motorists have greater rights than farmers, whose fields are wilting in the heat. Obtuse as that might sound, motorists have the right to see the “open space” and the farmer may not have the right to sell billboard space on his property.
Zoning regulations are often complex and they rarely become simpler. Also, the cost of compliance and enforcement adds more costs to goods and services. Thus the growth of the collective rights over property rights creates costs for all.
It is unlikely that local and state governments will ever vote on an affirmation of personal freedom. But state and local governments should simplify their zoning and regulatory efforts. In the process, they might also realize that personal property rights were one of the primary reasons our ancestors broke ties with a monarchy and created this great nation.
Chad Adams is director of the Center for Local Innovation, vice president for development of the John Locke Foundation, and former vice chairman of the Lee County Board of Commissioners.