New at Reason

David Weigel | October 16, 2006

Ronald Bailey takes on the environmentalists who argue, in the wake of Kelo, that trusting the government to take over land is still good for you.

Comments

Jennifer|10.16.06 @ 3:30PM|#

I have a question which is semi off-topic, but not entirely: a rich town in my area (Connecticut, home of Kelo, Christ what a clusterfuck this state is) is proposing new "subdivision" rules which state that anytime you subdivide your property you must turn 15 percent over to the town so they can preserve their "open spaces."

For example: say I own a two-acre piece of property, and would like to sell one acre. I must first turn over 15 percent to the town (for no compensation, of course.) And there are many caveats: the town can veto your choice of which piece of property you "donate," for example. And you can't "donate" any property that's considered wetlands or is too rocky to build upon; in other words, no donating property that has to remain open space anyway.

The only reason I know of this is because I work for a local newspaper, and I had some readers specifically request that I attend the recent zoning-board meeting where this proposal was discussed. After the meeting, I returned to my office to file the story all filled with righteous fury, thinking readers would be shocked by this vile piece of news I had for them, but my editor was quite bored. "Jennifer, most of the towns here have similar rules."

WHAT? I've been trying to find out how the hell this is allowed without being a violation of the Constitution, and have been getting far more of a run-around than usual from the local politicos. I know this is a long-shot question, but: does anybody here have a damned idea of how Connecticut towns can get away with this? Or does anybody even know where I can go to find this information without having to spend dozens of hours poring through legal minutiae in the state's law library? (My job pays by the hour and Corporate would rather fellate Bin Laden than pay overtime.)

If you know anything but don't want to clutter this thread, click on my name, which leads to my blog, which contains my e-mail address in the "profile" section. Or hell, I'll just give you my address here: feralgenius-at-hotmail.com

Jennifer|10.16.06 @ 3:32PM|#

I have a question which is semi off-topic, but not entirely: a rich town in my area (Connecticut, home of Kelo, Christ what a clusterfuck this state is) is proposing new "subdivision" rules which state that anytime you subdivide your property you must turn 15 percent over to the town so they can preserve their "open spaces."

For example: say I own a two-acre piece of property, and would like to sell one acre. I must first turn over 15 percent to the town (for no compensation, of course.) And there are many caveats: the town can veto your choice of which piece of property you "donate," for example. And you can't "donate" any property that's considered wetlands or is too rocky to build upon; in other words, no donating property that has to remain open space anyway.

The only reason I know of this is because I work for a local newspaper, and I had some readers specifically request that I attend the recent zoning-board meeting where this proposal was discussed. After the meeting, I returned to my office to file the story all filled with righteous fury, thinking readers would be shocked by this vile piece of news I had for them, but my editor was quite bored. "Jennifer, most of the towns here have similar rules."

WHAT? I've been trying to find out how the hell this is allowed without being a violation of the Constitution, and have been getting far more of a run-around than usual from the local politicos. I know this is a long-shot question, but: does anybody here have a damned idea of how Connecticut towns can get away with this? Or does anybody even know where I can go to find this information without having to spend dozens of hours poring through legal minutiae in the state's law library? (My job pays by the hour and Corporate would rather fellate Bin Laden than pay overtime.)

If you know anything but don't want to clutter this thread, click on my name, which leads to my blog, which contains my e-mail address in the "profile" section. Or hell, I'll just give you my address here: feralgenius-at-hotmail.com

Jennifer|10.16.06 @ 3:32PM|#

I have a question which is semi off-topic, but not entirely: a rich town in my area (Connecticut, home of Kelo, Christ what a clusterfuck this state is) is proposing new "subdivision" rules which state that anytime you subdivide your property you must turn 15 percent over to the town so they can preserve their "open spaces."

For example: say I own a two-acre piece of property, and would like to sell one acre. I must first turn over 15 percent to the town (for no compensation, of course.) And there are many caveats: the town can veto your choice of which piece of property you "donate," for example. And you can't "donate" any property that's considered wetlands or is too rocky to build upon; in other words, no donating property that has to remain open space anyway.

The only reason I know of this is because I work for a local newspaper, and I had some readers specifically request that I attend the recent zoning-board meeting where this proposal was discussed. After the meeting, I returned to my office to file the story all filled with righteous fury, thinking readers would be shocked by this vile piece of news I had for them, but my editor was quite bored. "Jennifer, most of the towns here have similar rules."

WHAT? I've been trying to find out how the hell this is allowed without being a violation of the Constitution, and have been getting far more of a run-around than usual from the local politicos. I know this is a long-shot question, but: does anybody here have a damned idea of how Connecticut towns can get away with this? Or does anybody even know where I can go to find this information without having to spend dozens of hours poring through legal minutiae in the state's law library? (My job pays by the hour and Corporate would rather fellate Bin Laden than pay overtime.)

If you know anything but don't want to clutter this thread, click on my name, which leads to my blog, which contains my e-mail address in the "profile" section. Or hell, I'll just give you my address here: feralgenius-at-hotmail.com

Jennifer|10.16.06 @ 3:35PM|#

Since I just asked for a favor, I'll refrain from making obscene remarks about the server.

For now.

|10.16.06 @ 4:04PM|#

Thats becuase most enviromentalists wackos reject the idea of private property they want to force us all off our lands into thier rotten big cities so they can return vast areas at least 50 to 60% of america into wilderness that the whole idea of THE WILDLANDS PROJECT the idea from enviroementalists extremists DAVE FOREMAN its time to say NO WILDLANDS and NOR MORE WILDERMESS we got enough wilderness

Jennifer|10.16.06 @ 4:06PM|#

Wally, are you sure your name isn't actually Flip?

|10.16.06 @ 4:16PM|#

Nice bit of verbal vomit there, Wally.
Do you scream at your television too?

|10.16.06 @ 4:21PM|#

I applaud Ron's article, but note that for centuries the rich have used zoning laws to regulate the use of "private" property so that things stay the way they want them to be. There is a "city" outside of Dallas called Turtle Creek, which is zoned exclusively for single-family homes, with a minimum lot size of 1 3/4 acres. It's a nice way to keep out the riff-raff.

So let's overturn the laws the Washington Post loves that "control sprawl" (i.e., prevent people from living where they want to live), but remember that conservatives can play the NIMBY game as well as liberals.

|10.16.06 @ 4:39PM|#

Since I just asked for a favor, I'll refrain from making obscene remarks about the server.

Is that the fucking whore servers you're referring to?

Dan T.|10.16.06 @ 4:44PM|#

Naturally, people who think they know best how other people should use their property are up in arms over the initiatives.

Is it a requirement of Reason that all stories written here must include this kind of snarky but meaningless line?

I suppose you could say that if you think murder should be illegal, it means that you know better than others how they can use their handguns.

Jennifer|10.16.06 @ 4:49PM|#

No, Stevo, it's the servers who suck the sulfurous hairy balls of Satan.

|10.16.06 @ 4:55PM|#

yeah, has anyone ever figured out what is wrong with the servers... i swear i have to wait 9 million years to post sometimes. shouldn't the market put those server companies right out of business?!?!

and, jennifer, wow... your editor may be correct that "most towns have similar rules" but it doesn't make it any less shocking.

and, while folks are out there helping jennifer, can anyone tell me how/why my public university can ban firearms on campus or how/why the feds can ban them in national parks? i thought the constitution was a check on government.

|10.16.06 @ 5:29PM|#

"I suppose you could say that if you think murder should be illegal, it means that you know better than others how they can use their handguns."

Gosh, that was helpful, Dan.

I keep running into people who are utterly aghast at the notion that other property owners should be allowed to "just do whatever they want" on the property they own. And, of course, like Dan, they immediately set about poisoning the debate with some apocalyptic what-if such as pig iron smelters in the next door neighbor's back yard. "Well, some little kid could wander in there and get seriously injured."

Resist, if you can (this is the voice of personal experience, mind you), the impulse to respond, "Well it might teach the little bastard a valuable lesson about wandering into places he hasn't been invited."

It's surprising that there is no "design review" by the town to ensure that no imappropriate structures are allowed to impinge on the bucolic torpor of your little neighborhood.

Jennifer|10.16.06 @ 5:41PM|#

P Brooks, don't take Dan seriously. He always makes bullshit comments in hopes of getting attention.

Dan--I too was unpopular in high school, but I got over it approximately 15 minutes after graduation. I'd say you're long overdue, son.

Timothy|10.16.06 @ 6:00PM|#

I got over being unpopular in high school when I got my first blowjob (Senior year). I think there's a valuable lesson for Dan in that someplace.

Jennifer|10.16.06 @ 6:01PM|#

while folks are out there helping jennifer

Alas, nobody has--no new e-mails in my box. Ah, well, I knew it was a longshot. Unfortunately, my editor won't let me write a story along the lines of "The proposed law apparently violates these particular parts of the Constitution. Calls to the zoning board requesting information about this were not returned."

|10.16.06 @ 6:27PM|#

Jennifer, yea, as your finding out, people aren't to gung ho about defending the US Consitution. Sad too, because its a relatively simple document to understand.
I found this out when no one responded on this blog to my call to form a Libertarian militia.
Speaking of which, I hope you are excercising your right to bear arms.
If not, but you want to, go to www.keepandbeararms.com or www.theothersideofkim.com for good advice or links to good advice.

Jennifer|10.16.06 @ 6:32PM|#

Terry, in this specific case, I don't think it's a matter of "people aren't gung-ho about defending the Constitution" but rather "nobody knows the answer to my question, which is: how the HELL can towns in Connecticut confiscate 15 percent of your property with no compensation whatsoever, without this being a violation of the eminent domain laws?"

If I could just find out what the justification is, THEN my editor would let me write a story about it. But I can't find it, and nobody--big surprise--is willing to talk to me.

|10.16.06 @ 7:01PM|#

How "liberal" are your state's FOIA laws? Was this a rulemaking that went on behind closed doors? If they won't talk to you, is there any information you can demand from them?

Timothy|10.16.06 @ 7:01PM|#

Jennifer: You should try emailing Orin Kerr, Randy Barnett or Eugene Volokh of the Volokh Conspiracy blog. Firstly, they've all been more than kind to me in the past and quite helpful, and secondly all are definitely on the right side on this.

|10.16.06 @ 7:33PM|#

Ultimately, if we compensate voluntary land use restrictions, then we should especially pay for imposing involuntary land use restrictions. That is just plain simple justice.

true dat, Ron. double true, even.

|10.16.06 @ 8:35PM|#

how the HELL can towns in Connecticut confiscate 15 percent of your property with no compensation whatsoever, without this being a violation of the eminent domain laws?"
If I could just find out what the justification is,

My guess is they simply want to discourage splitting lots, and thought it would be easier to make up onerous rules about splitting than to simply ban it.
They probably justify the takings by saying it's voluntary; you're splitting your lot voluntarily, knowing what the rules are. I imagine their response will be: Don't want them to take your land? Then don't split your lot.

Jennifer|10.16.06 @ 9:31PM|#

How "liberal" are your state's FOIA laws? Was this a rulemaking that went on behind closed doors?

No, this was an open meeting. The problem is, my deadline is 9:30 each night (meaning the story must be written and filed by then), these meetings never start until 7:30, and it's a 20-minute drive from the meetings to my office. This means I never, ever get to stay to the end of the meetings, and obviously I couldn't talk to the board members while the meeting was going on.

Since then I've been trying to call various people, but never, ever seem to get through. Also, the fact that I have to find and write two stories per day doesn't give me a hell of a lot of time for in-depth research about anything else. Which is why I'm getting so damned desperate I actually hijacked a Hit and Run thread in the vain hope a reader might have some insight into these matters.

They probably justify the takings by saying it's voluntary; you're splitting your lot voluntarily, knowing what the rules are.

Maybe, but I suspect that whatever the answer is, it sounds lot more complicated, and involves the use of far more legalese. Besides, splitting the lot is voluntary but handing over 15 percent of it sure as hell isn't.

|10.16.06 @ 10:37PM|#

I hate to be pessimistic, but the U.S. Constitution does not prevent the government from doing anything it wants.

Seriously. If the government can force a farmer to destroy wheat grown for his own consumption on his own land, what can't it do?

Yes, if one reads the U.S. Constitution, it limits the Federal Government to several enumerated powers. In theory the American people have not delegated any additional power to government officials.

I find the following simile instructive: imagine you aunt hires a lawyer to manage her affairs and pay her bills. She signs a contract that only permits this lawyer to act as her agent in certain very limited areas. However, one day she's tired and so she asks the lawyer to do something not under the contract, which he happily does. Then she does it again with something else. The lawyer, predicting her wants starts to exceed the scope of the contract unilaterally, and when she questions the bill, points out that he is better qualified to interpert the contract, because he has had legal training and she hasn't. He convinces her that she misunderstood the contract, and that she should rely exclusively on him for its interpertation. Bit by bit, he does more and more, and charges more and more, until one day your aunt discovers that she cannot spend any money without his permission, that he has liens on all her property, and is viewed as her guardian ad litem.

Asking if the Constitution prevents some outrage is a little like asking if the contract prevents your aunt. If it had been vigorously defended in the past, perhaps it might have. But most Americans have been quite happy to ignore it out of laziness, complacency, or greed to live off of the confiscated wealth of their neighbors. The paper won't enforce itself, and because our contrymen have happily allowed the U.S. Supreme Court to act as the supreme interperter of the constitution, it is worthless as a contract.

So I think that you are wasting your time (although screaming from the rooftops that a government is exceeding the powers formally granted to it does not really hurt, so more power to you).

|10.17.06 @ 12:32AM|#

In Washington State there's an initiative to protect property rights that will be on the next ballot. Some people are aghast that this is happening. I'm not living in Washington State now so I don't know exactly what the initiative says. But I've found it interesting reading the reactions to it from opponents. Some claim that the initiative process itself is a threat to representative democracy. Depending on the bill, in some cases I agree - the no smoking law within 25 feet of a building started out as an initiative. So, I can see the point that initiatives sometimes are at odds with individual rights. But in the case of this bill, it appears to me it's a reaction to how eminent domain law has been abused of late.

Here's a letter that was printed in one of the Seattle papers:


"Essentially, I-933 is about whether people �
> citizens � have the right to come together, through
> democratically elected representatives, and enact
> laws, rules and regulations for the common good.
> Backers of I-933 call this tyranny; I call it
> civilization. Backers of I-933 are absolutists who
> would say that private property rights represent the
> deepest and most sacred principle of society, a
> shibboleth that should not be modified in the
> slightest for any reason.
> I say property rights are relative and subject to
> common-sense restrictions, like the venerable
> free-speech exception of yelling "Fire" in a crowded
> theater where there is no fire. Backers of I-933
> exalt individual rights exclusively, as if the
> realities of a polyglot, crowded society provide no
> legitimate counterweight.
> I say I-933's intent to bribe individuals not to
> harm the common good is in direct contravention to
> that which makes us most human, the recognition of
> humanity in others."
>
>

|10.17.06 @ 12:33AM|#

See the "Village of Euclid, Ohio v. Ambler Realty Co" case on the supreme court jennifer...esentially it allows zoning regs and many of the add ons that have since been added to go around the 14th amendments discrimination clause.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Village_of_Euclid%2C_Ohio_v._Ambler_Realty_Co.

|10.17.06 @ 12:40AM|#

also i find it exteemly funny that you went to a zoning-board meeting and ended up being outraged...

By the way any libertarians here should go to thier local planning board or zoneing board or what ever they call them where you live meeting at least once.

You will feel physically sick before you leave.

Jennifer|10.17.06 @ 12:47AM|#

i find it exteemly funny that you went to a zoning-board meeting and ended up being outraged...

That was only my second meeting. I was outraged after attending my first one, too, and wrote an article detailing just how a woman ended up paying $1200 in various fines and fees because she built her damned garden shed three feet too close to her property line. After detailing her story, I ended with one-sentence descriptions of the other variances granted that evening: for example, a woman who obtained (extremely expensive) permission to build steps leading up to her front porch, despite the fact that her bottom step would be 46 feet away from the street, rather than 50.

My editor didn't think it was newsworthy since that sort of thing happens all the time. The version of the story that ran was quite different from the one I turned in.

By the way: remember earlier on this thread when I mentioned that people could find my email address in my blog-profile? Don't bother: somehow I completely screwed up the HTML and now my sidebar is way the hell down at the bottom of the page. I don't dare try to fix it until I hear from some computer-savvy acquaintances. Damn, I'm in a vile mood right now.

|10.17.06 @ 12:56AM|#

So, I can see the point that initiatives sometimes are at odds with individual rights. But in the case of this bill, it appears to me it's a reaction to how eminent domain law has been abused of late.

Actually it has its roots more in what Jennifer is talking about...regulatory takings and also with washington's proximity to Oregon who just passed measure 37 and also the 65% critical areas ordinance in King county as well as the how shitty the Growth management act works in general as well as a lack of affordable housing (if you live in Washington State you might have noticed how a peice of shit 2 bedroom one bath built in 1903 in Ballard now costs over $300,000)

|10.17.06 @ 1:08AM|#

Anyone know if the "Glancing Geese" law is still in effect? I remember reading something about this in Bovard's "Lost Rights" where private property could be declared a wetland if geese flying overhead were seen glancing down.

|10.17.06 @ 1:12AM|#

OK, I'll bite.

Jennifer, I spent a brief few months working as a reporter for The New Mexican in Santa Fe, N.M., a beautiful tourist-trap of a town that must have the most onerous zoning ordinances (say that three times fast) west of the Pecos. My initial reaction -- like that of everyone who lurks on the Hit&Run comment boards -- was to be simply appalled. My second, third, fourth and fifth reactions were similar. I still can't actually sit through a Planning Commission meeting (in my new hometown) without wanting to burn the building down.

That said, every piddling little zoning rule is written with the intent of either preserving a town's look and feel or to keep one neighbor from intruding on another's space. And what those really come down to is preserving property values.

Now, my 8th-grade history teacher, Mr. Ward, used to like to say, "Your right to swing your arm ends where my nose begins." I think everyone here and even in Poshville, Ct., would agree that what Americans do in the privacy of their own bedrooms is their own business, but if they do it on the front lawn and scare the sheep, it becomes a public matter.

Similarly, you'll see very few (if any) ordinances regulating what color people can paint their living room walls or what sort of countertops can go in the kitchen. But there are a lot of ordinances about how big a porch can be and what color the house can be painted. And the reason is that what you do at 200 Shady Lane affects the whole block, which affects the whole neighborhood, which affects the whole town.

If you don't like it, you can always move to rural Nevada, where there's enough room between neighbors to target-shoot in the backyard. Good look getting Domino's to deliver, though.

|10.17.06 @ 1:23AM|#

joe, where are you? Can someone stop by joe's house to see if he's all right?

:)

Jennifer|10.17.06 @ 1:27AM|#

But guys, this isn't even a zoning law, strictly speaking. The difference between the Connecticut situation and the things Ron Bailey describes is that in Bailey's cases the property still belongs to you, though you are prohibited from doing certain things with it. But at least then there is the CHANCE that someday the rules will be rescinded and you'll be able to do as you please again. But here with this "subdivision-15 percent" nonsense, the property is outright taken from you. Neither you nor your heirs will EVER be able to use it, even if certain zoning laws are repealed.

Zoning laws: this is still your property, but you must follow certain restrictions.

The 15-percent travesty: we're confiscating your property and you're not getting a penny of compensation for it.

Big difference.

|10.17.06 @ 5:36AM|#

jennifer:

I don't know if this is quite what you're looking for, but have you tried
http://www.castlecoalition.org
or
http://www.pacificlegal.org/?mvcTask=topic&id=1&category=7

|10.17.06 @ 5:41AM|#

What color your home is or how big your porch are hardly seem like issues where your right to do as you please is similar to taking a swing with your arm. The former is purely about aesthetics which can be very subjective and arbitrary. However, if your neighbor is a hunter and leaves his dead carcasses out in his back yard to rot (I had a neighbor like this) then yeah, that's a public nuisance and should be subjected to restrictions. It's a health hazzard for one thing. Or if your neighbor's plants or trees are growing into your yard, then he's overstepped his own boundaries. But can't the courts deal with some of these problems? Where your and your neighbor's property rights tend to blur, can't this be solved through either amicable agreements, mediation and arbitration, or small claims' courts deal with such problems? Why is a regulatory body so necessary?

|10.17.06 @ 8:55AM|#

Jennifer:

A law requiring you to turn over 15% of your property to the town because you want to split your lot is a jaw-dropper, I've been sitting here shaking my head in disbelief. For Hit & Run, the other commenters here seem to be taking it with less outrage that I would have expected. Tarran's comment about the incremental violations of our rights leading to the loss of those rights was interesting and informative, this is how we're losing more and more of our freedom. First they came for the Jews.....

|10.17.06 @ 10:18AM|#

Jennifer,

I have something else shocking to tell you: in every single jurisdiction in America, people who want to build subdivisions are forced by the government to turn over large portions of their project - usually somewhere between 10 and 20% - for public use. The government is allowed to decide where this land will be located and how it will be laid out, and the owners are not allowed to build anthing there. This has the effect of significantly reducing the number of homes that can be built.

In common parlance, this land is called "the right of way," or "the streets," and I'm reasonably certain that the writers of the Constitution were aware of this practice when they wrote the fifth amendment.

Jennifer|10.17.06 @ 10:57AM|#

Joe, this law doesn't just apply to "people who want to build subdivisions," but to any individual person who wants to divide one piece of property into more than one. And if the town feels that open spaces are so damned important, let the town pay for it rather than require the homeowners to do so.

|10.17.06 @ 1:17PM|#

Jennifer,

"Dividing one piece of property into more than one" is the definition of subdivision.

Just like with roadways, the conveyance of the land, or any work on the ground, is not required at the time the plan is approved, but only at the time of building, so yes, this is about the construction of subdivisions.

And if the town feels that roadways are so darn important, let the town pay for it rather than requiring the developer to hand it over.

You've yet to identify a single meaningful distinction between requiring land for roads when a subdivision plan is filed, and requiring land for open space when a subdivision plan is filed.

BTW, out of curiosity, does this requirement allow the lot sizes to be reduced from the statutory minimum, so that the number of buildable lots remains the same with and without the open space? Or does this law require a reduction in the number of lots to meet the open space requirement?

BTW, Alan Vennamen is exactly right about the elitist NIMBYism of most suburban zoning laws - it really is about excluding the ppor, and is has been ever since the Euclid decision described keeping rental housin out of single family neighborhoods as "keeping the pig out of the parlour." Rent an apartment? That's you, piggy.

And finally, a great big Fuck You to the asshat whoe response to a land use regulation is "First they came for the Jews....."

|10.17.06 @ 2:40PM|#

"Why is a regulatory body so necessary?"

i think you're right that such issues could be decided by courts. i think the necessity of such bodies is to keep the courts from being jam packed with every gripe one homeowner has against another.

think of it as a baseline on which people can operate knowing that they are not going to find themselves in court because of their neighbor.

Jennifer|10.17.06 @ 2:57PM|#

Joe, I would simply like to know this: if open space is so important (and I agree it is) that everybody in the community benefits, why not have everybody in the community pay for it via tazes, rather than make a single homeowner foot the entire bill?

You've yet to identify a single meaningful distinction between requiring land for roads when a subdivision plan is filed, and requiring land for open space when a subdivision plan is filed.

You're being disingenuous here, pretending that since a subdivision needs roads for people to get to and from their houses, that justifies requiring homeowners to hand over 15 percent of their property to the town so that the town can do absolutely nothing with it.

"Dividing one piece of property into more than one" is the definition of subdivision.

That is the definition of subdivision used as a verb. You were talking about building a subdivision, in which case it is a noun. The difference is not merely grammatical: you're talking about two completely different things but pretending they're exactly the same. Can't you defend your position without resorting to semantic dishonesty?

|10.17.06 @ 3:43PM|#

Jennifer,

For the same reason that developers are required to provide roads, and sometimes even make off-site improvements to the road system, when they build a project - to make sure there is adequate provision of (open space/transportion) for the residents of ther development, and to mitigate the implact of the development on the existing (open space/transportion) system.

"...so that the town can do absolutely nothing with it." It is you who is being disingenuous, by pretending that the provision of open space is somehow distinct from the provision of roadways, just becaue the latter requires more effort and upkeep from the town than the former.

As far as your statement that I was making a semantic point about this referring to subdivisions, I repeat: "Just like with roadways, the conveyance of the land, or any work on the ground, is not required at the time the plan is approved, but only at the time of building, so yes, this is about the construction of subdivisions."

You shouldn't accuse me of dishonesty just because your limited knowledge of the subject matter prevents you from immediately understanding my point.

Jennifer|10.17.06 @ 3:55PM|#

when they build a project - to make sure there is adequate provision of (open space/transportion) for the residents of ther development . . . It is you who is being disingenuous, by pretending that the provision of open space is somehow distinct from the provision of roadways

Joe, it's obvious that people need roads to get to and from their own houses. A developer can't build a bunch of houses with no roadways connecting them, at least not in a car-dependent society like America.

Open space, by contrast, is a luxury, not a necessity. (Personally, I'm all for open space. I just don't think other people should have to pay for it so I can enjoy looking at green stuff.) Furthermore, if you look at my original comment you'll notice that there's already lots of open space in the town, but the town will not accept land like wetlands which has to remain open anyway. No, they want MORE on top of that, and they're not paying the homeowners one thin dime in compensation.

Furthermore, how much "open space" is really saved by demanding 15 percent of property as small as one acre? We're not even talking about an actual park or nature preserve; we're talking about little patchwork pieces of land scattered throughout. If the town is so determined to limit the number of homes and make sure there's plenty of "open space," it would be more honest of them to institute outright snob zoning, like requiring houses to be built on one-acre lots, than to confiscate 15 percent of any property that's going to have a piece of it sold off.

Jennifer|10.17.06 @ 4:21PM|#

Another question, Joe: you've always opposed snob zoning on the grounds that it artificially inflates home prices so that poor people can't afford to live in certain neighborhoods; why do you then support the 15-perecent land grab, which has the exact same effect with the additional evilly goodness of confiscating property without compensation?

|10.17.06 @ 4:35PM|#

Um,

I agree as a personal matter. My neighbor recently outraged most of the block by painting his house electric orange, but I couldn't care less. However, I think that as a practical matter, orderly (bland, vanilla, two-car garages and please no cars parked in the street) neighborhoods raise everyone's property values. The converse, then, is also true: The guy who paints his orange lowers everyone else's property values. But I can hardly take him to small-claims court if my house sells a litle slower and for a little less money than it otherwise would have.

|10.17.06 @ 5:07PM|#

You shouldn't accuse me of dishonesty just because your limited knowledge of the subject matter prevents you from immediately understanding my point.

and one begins to ask oneself...what does joe do for a living and where does his vast knowledge associated with land use regulations come from?

|10.17.06 @ 5:27PM|#

Jennifer (if you're still out there)-

What happens to the land "donated" as open space? Who cares for it and maintains it? Is it designated as municipal park land, with jungle gyms and swingsets?

Can the value of this land be considered a tax and treated as such on one's federal return? I bet I already know the answer.

Jennifer|10.17.06 @ 5:52PM|#

What happens to the land "donated" as open space? Who cares for it and maintains it?

It becomes town property to do with as they please. The can make a park if they choose to in the future, but until then they just hang on to it.

However, as I mentioned before, how much of a park can you make out of the one-fifteenth of an acre between, say, my old house and the new one you just built on the piece of land I sold to you?

|10.17.06 @ 8:04PM|#

Jennifer,

A developer could certainly stack his lots, and have only driveways crossing other lots providing access, but that's not how subdivision regs work. The developer has to donate the land, and has to spend his own money building it to the city's specifications.0

"Open space, by contrast, is a luxury, not a necessity." In your opinion.

"Furthermore, how much "open space" is really saved by demanding 15 percent of property as small as one acre?" Even minimal areas of open space can preserve connectivity, which is just as important in many ways as total land area.

Which is not to say the regulation might not be partially or completely snob zoning and/or NIMBYism. You'd be surprised, or not, at how many people discover they were a speckled trout in a past life when someone proposed to built a subdivision next to their subdivision.

"Another question, Joe: you've always opposed snob zoning on the grounds that it artificially inflates home prices so that poor people can't afford to live in certain neighborhoods; why do you then support the 15-perecent land grab, which has the exact same effect with the additional evilly goodness of confiscating property without compensation"

Sersiously, you should research whether there is a reduction in nominal lot size that accompanies this regulation, so that the number of units stays the same. I suspect that there is, because that's usually how it works. This is known as cluster zoning, and it actually serves to reduce home costs slightly, by reducing the amount of infrastructure that needs to be built with each unit.

But in the big picture, I am well aware of the twin problems of segregation and high housing costs associated with overly-restrictive suburban zoning. I believe municipalities should have the right to regulate land use to achieve important public purposes like environmental conservation, but that they should also be required to figure out some way to allow the provision of the necessary number and type of housing units to meet demand. In other words, there need to be at least some areas of intensive development carved out, even if the majority of the town is to remain Rural Residential or some such thing. As people always point out on "overpopulation" threads, significant growth can be accommodated without decimating open space, if it is handled right.

joshua corning,

My education and experience is as a municipal planner, although I'm not working in the field at this time.

Semantic McPicky (AKA Ayn_Rand|10.17.06 @ 9:41PM|#

However, as I mentioned before, how much of a park can you make out of the one-fifteenth of an acre between, say, my old house and the new one you just built on the piece of land I sold to you?

15% is closer to 1/7 than 1/15th.

Basically, joe, you're covering your snobbery by couching it in scientific terms, but that's alright, you'll never stop. And you knew what was meant by "subdivision"...christ even I am not that semantic. So, uh, joe, tell me again, if my barely-floating-above-water son and his pregnant wife want to have a trailer in my backyard, instead of me actually granting them land so they can maybe leverage it for a future (you know, appreciation and equity and all that), it's more American for me to not divide my land for them, because of the loss associated?

Bah, to hell with you.

|10.18.06 @ 3:10AM|#

Trotsky,
You make a valid point about property values. But then I wonder how far this can go - do these zoning regs extend to how many trees, flowers, vegetables, etc. can be planted? How tall my grass is? How many lawn chairs I have?

Some people complain about the tryanny of neighborhood associations but I don't see a difference between what the neighborhood association requires for compliance and these zoning regulations. The only differences I see is that at least you can opt out of the neighborhood association, pick a different one more in tune with your tastes, or not live in fear that the neighborhood association will change the agreement you signed after you have moved in.