Court's Wild Zoning Decision Blocks 'Montana Miracle'
Plus: More local "missing middle" reforms pass in Maine and Virginia, Colorado court blesses crackdown on student housing, and Florida tries to escape its slow growth past.

With a new year comes new opportunities, and lots of new zoning news. But on Day 2 of 2024, there's still a lot of old business to wrap up. This week's edition of Rent Free includes:
- Portland, Maine, and Charlottesville, Virginia, pass "missing middle" reforms in the final days of 2023.
- A Colorado Court blesses a local ordinance cracking down on student housing.
- Florida tries to dig its way out of its slow-growth legacy.
But first, we have a story on a truly bizarre court decision blocking zoning reform in Montana.
Court Says Legalizing Duplexes, Granny Flats Likely Violates Equal Protection
In an eyebrow-raising decision, a Montana judge has halted the implementation of two laws legalizing duplexes and accessory dwelling units on residential land across the state, writing that they'd likely do "irreparable" damage to residents of single-family neighborhoods.
"With the 'top-down' imposition of these measures, Montana's citizens…stand to suffer. They dread waking up in the morning, with no notice, and a new, more dense, building is being erected in their family neighborhood," wrote Gallatin County Judge Mike Salvagni in a Friday opinion granting suing homeowners a requested preliminary injunction against the new laws.
You are reading Rent Free from Christian Britschgi and Reason. Get more of Christian's urban regulation, development, and zoning coverage.
Large majorities in the Montana Legislature had passed duplex and Accessory Dwelling Units (ADU) laws last year as part of a package of reforms that also allowed housing in commercial zones and restricted individuals' ability to challenge the approval of general plan-compliant housing projects.
Dubbed the "Montana Miracle" by CityLab, the reforms rank as some of the more ambitious housing bills passed by any state legislature last year.
Throughout the process, these reforms attracted the opposition of some local governments and homeowner groups who argued they would spoil existing single-family neighborhoods with rampant development.
This past month, homeowners organized under the group Montanans Against Irresponsible Densification (MAID) sued the state to overturn the new laws.
The group argued that the state's zoning reforms violated constitutional guarantees of equal protection by only allowing ADUs and duplexes in single-family areas that are not covered by restrictive private covenants that ban this type of housing. MAID said this would unfairly funnel development into areas without protective covenants, and produce arbitrary results whereby duplexes could be built on one side of a street, but not on the other side.
The group also argued that the new duplex and ADU laws, by requiring local governments to approve this type of housing, violated provisions of the Montana Constitution guaranteeing citizens' right to participate in government decision-making.
It's an odd idea indeed that people have a constitutional right to the protection of private covenants they didn't opt into. One commenter on X (formerly Twitter) noted that existing zoning laws produce equally arbitrary results of allowing duplexes on one side of a street but only single-family homes on another.
Nevertheless, Salvagni reasoned that MAID's arguments were likely to prevail.
In regards to the group's equal protection claims, he writes that "the result of the new laws is that two different sets of people, one protected by restrictive covenants, the other not, results in an arbitrary application of Montana law which is unrelated to any legitimate governmental purpose."
Salvagni also agreed with MAID that citizens' right to participate in government decision-making was likely violated. He rejected the state's argument that the public's ability to participate in the legislative process through which the ADU and duplex laws were passed sufficient public participation.
It's an inevitability that as more supply-side Yes in My Backyard (YIMBY) zoning reforms are passed, more will end up getting challenged in court.
In September 2023, a Minnesota judge overturned Minneapolis' first-in-the-nation abolition of single-family-only zoning (in addition to other zoning reforms), citing the city's failure to conduct a proper state-required environmental analysis of increased allowable density.
Last month, a court in Texas also shot down zoning reforms passed by the city of Austin, siding with homeowners who'd argued the city failed to provide adequate individualized notice of the zoning changes to affected property owners.
These decisions invalidated reforms on largely procedural grounds. Salvagni's decision appears more sweeping by blocking zoning reforms because of their substance. Any law limiting public hearings on individual projects or legalizing more housing than what's allowed under existing private covenants would seem to be vulnerable under the logic of his decision.
Lawyer and Mercatus Scholar Charles Gardner has a thread on X highlighting the more novel parts of Salvagni's opinion and arguing that his decision is vulnerable to being overturned on appeal. Time will tell.
Missing Middle Reform Marches On
Charlottesville, Virginia, and Portland, Maine closed out the year by passing "missing middle" reforms that allow smaller multi-unit developments in formerly single-family-only areas.
Charlottesville
On December 18, the Charlottesville City Council unanimously approved a major overhaul of its zoning code that's been several years in the making.
The changes include liberalizing rules in low-density residential zones to allow at least three units by-right almost everywhere in the city, and up to eight units by-right in some residential zones. Preservation and affordability bonuses would allow builders to add up to 12 units on some parcels.
The city did retain a small single-family-only district (covering 4 percent of city land), but even here builders will have the option of adding two additional homes if they preserve the existing house on the property.
The city also created new "inclusionary zoning" standards requiring developers of projects that contain more than 10 units in mixed-use zones to offer 10 percent of those new units at rates that are affordable to people making 60 percent of the area median income. That's a pretty burdensome affordability requirement that will likely make a lot of smaller-scale apartment construction infeasible.
Charlottesville Planning Commissioner Rory Stolzenberg has a helpful thread summarizing the zoning changes. The full draft ordinance, which does not include some amendments made at the December 18 meeting, can be found here.
Portland
Also on December 18, the city council of Portland, Maine, passed a slew of zoning reforms that allow up to four units of housing on most residential properties in the city.
The reforms are intended to bring Portland into compliance with a 2022 state law requiring localities to allow "middle housing" in all residential zones. The deadline for compliance with the state law was January 1, 2024.
Portland already allowed one primary unit and two accessory dwelling units in all residential zones, plus duplexes and triplexes in select areas of the city. The new reforms allow up to four primary residences as well as two accessory ADUs on all residential lots on the mainland and up to three units (plus two ADUs) on islands within Portland's jurisdiction.
The city also eliminated parking requirements for four-unit homes.
Colorado Court Allows Crackdown on Student Housing
In Montana, equal protection entitles you to be covered by restrictive covenants you didn't opt into. In Colorado, equal protection apparently doesn't protect you from cities from writing zoning ordinances that only apply to you and no one else.
The Colorado Court of Appeals has given its blessing to a Lakewood, Colorado, ordinance that bans colleges from owning off-campus student housing. The Colorado Christian University—which had converted several off-campus homes it owned into student housing—challenged the ordinance in 2021. The university argued that, as the only entity covered by the law, it was being unfairly singled out.
The appeals court rejected those arguments, finding instead that the law was a legitimate way for the city to protect residential neighborhoods being turned into "university residential life centers."
Turning Historic Hotels into Residential High-Rises
I have a new feature for Reason covering Florida's efforts to overcome its legacy of slow growth laws. That includes recent reforms allowing property owners to build residential projects in commercial areas, much to the chagrin of local officials. A snippet:
For years now, Miami Beach officials have talked and acted like the historic Clevelander hotel was the worst thing to ever happen to the city. That was until they saw the business's plans for shutting down.
Over the past decade, the adults-only hotel, bar, and restaurant on Ocean Drive has been beefing with the city over whether it is an iconic pillar of South Beach's world-famous nightlife or a bad actor whose late-night operations are bringing crime and out-of-control revelers to the area.
"It's been a very contentious seven or eight years just to stay open," says Alexander Tachmes, a lawyer and spokesperson for the Clevelander. He estimates that the business has spent $1 million challenging restrictions the city has slapped on its nighttime concerts and alcohol sales.
Tiring of fighting continuous, expensive court cases, the Clevelander's owners decided to do something different.
In September 2023, they announced a plan to redevelop the five-story hotel into a 30-story residential tower. Most of the new homes would be luxury beachside condos. But 40 percent would be below–market rate, affordable units. The redevelopment would be a way to get out of the politically controversial bar business while cashing in on the growing demand for housing in ultra-expensive Miami Beach.
As a bonus, it really pisses off the city.
"I was hoping that it was simply a joke, but I don't think it is," says Miami Beach Mayor Dan Gelber. While he'd be happy to see the Clevelander replaced, he says the owners are scoring zero points with their "hideously out-of-scale" proposal.
"It's absurd," the mayor tells Reason. "It's like the kids that kill their parents and say, 'Have mercy on us, we're orphans.'"
You can read the whole thing here.
Quick Links
- Newburgh, New York, is the latest jurisdiction in the Empire State to adopt rent stabilization. Before 2019, rent regulation was only allowed in communities within the greater New York City area.
- Another 18 cities eliminated all parking mandates in 2023, according to data collected by the Parking Reform Network, including 13 cities in Oregon responding to new state legislation requiring the ending of parking mandates.
- Residents of Milton, Massachusetts, have managed to put a resolution on the town ballot overturning zoning changes made by the town government to allow new apartments near local rail stops. If passed, the city would be out of compliance with a 2020 state law requiring cities with rail service to allow by-right multifamily housing near rail stops.
- Home prices increased 5.6 percent year-over-year as of November 2023, according to the American Enterprise Institute's Home Price Appreciation Index. AEI pins the price increases on "historically tight supply."
Regulation of the Week
New York City's zoning code allows entertainment venues to allow patrons to dance in all manufacturing districts. The code nevertheless prohibits customer dancing in C-1 and C-5 commercial districts.
Rent Free is a weekly newsletter from Christian Britschgi on urbanism and the fight for less regulation, more housing, more property rights, and more freedom in America's cities.
Editor's Note: As of February 29, 2024, commenting privileges on reason.com posts are limited to Reason Plus subscribers. Past commenters are grandfathered in for a temporary period. Subscribe here to preserve your ability to comment. Your Reason Plus subscription also gives you an ad-free version of reason.com, along with full access to the digital edition and archives of Reason magazine. We request that comments be civil and on-topic. We do not moderate or assume any responsibility for comments, which are owned by the readers who post them. Comments do not represent the views of reason.com or Reason Foundation. We reserve the right to delete any comment and ban commenters for any reason at any time. Comments may only be edited within 5 minutes of posting. Report abuses.
Please
to post comments
Nobody wants apartments in their nice neighborhood.
I get paid more than $120 to $130 every hour for working on the web. I found out about this activity 3 months prior and subsequent to joining this I have earned effectively $15k from this without having internet working abilities Copy underneath site to..
Check It—>>> http://Www.Smartcareer1.com
It would be nice if he addressed this in any of these housing articles. They basically all just come down to him pushing for cramped apartments being shoved down people's throats. His support of private property only extends to those who adhere to his preference of condensed living
Your property rights extend to your property (and to any contractual provisions attached to it). They do not extend to veto power over building elsewhere in your neighborhood unless explicitly provided for.
I’m glad you feel that way. Now we can put some high density low income housing next door to your place. Apartments that cater to active meth addicts.
Or... OH, the HORRORS!!! Apartments that cater to active illegal sub-humans, trannies, accused “groomers”, abortionists, gays, heathens, infidels, vaxxers, mask-wearers, atheists, dirty hippies, Jews, witches, or, the very WORST of them all, being one of those accused of STEALING THE ERECTIONS OF OUR DEAR LEADER, right, right-wing wrong-nuts? ANY methods are OK, so long as they are used against the CORRECT enemies, am I right?
Am I Right, or am I a RIGHT-WING DING-A-LING, Oh Great Electric and Erectic Punk Boogers?!?!?
Go take your meds, you shitty troll.
Kind of funny your meth addiction comment summoned sqrsly.
pushing for cramped apartments being shoved down people’s throats
How exactly is what other people do with their property being shoved down my throat?
I'm mostly confused by the notion that Montana needs housing densification measures. The only state I can think of that might need that less is Alaska. There's a lot of space and not many people in Montana. Surely the ability to find empty land to build apartments on isn't in that dire a condition.
Much of the land is protected at multiple levels of government, but especially at the county level. Many rural counties expressly state it is their policy to maintain their rural character, which translates into prohibitions on multi-family housing and even restrictions on SFR subdivisions, such as minimum lot requirements of 20 acres or more.
To me, the issue is: if I buy land for its "rural character", is the state obligated to respect that by prohibiting development on adjacent land I do not own? Is that expectation a protected property right under libertarian property rights theory? To what extent? These questions don't even go into issues such as water rights (which are owned by the state and require state permission for any change of use, quantity, or point source).
But even around the cities?
Yep, even there. In the capital, Helena, for example, the north valley just outside of city limits is zoned for "rural-residential mixed use" which allows only for agriculture or SFRs with minimum lot sizes of 10 acres.
There's plenty of open land in MT, but very little of it has any kind of utility services. Getting it build-able for housing is a lot harder than just parceling out the acreage; at the very least, roads need to be graded through the area and electrification possibly including construction of new sub-stations would have to be done. It's possible to put new houses on well water and septic systems rather than municipal water/sewer service but that would likely require more acreage per unit to keep enough separation to prevent contamination of the clean water wells.
Another factor in MT is that the population of the state has grown by 25% in the last 30 years (mostly in the last 10 or so, really), despite the best efforts of state/local governments to discourage growth by preventing economic development, which is something that remote work has enabled the tech sector to "disrupt". Not to mention that the relative speed of the growth combined with the possibility that many of the "immigrant" arrivals are accustomed to a much higher cost of living, the housing markets in several parts of the state have been highly distorted, at least in the short term; since local cost of living had traditionally been quite low, the local wage scales are low as well and a lot of the people born and raised in the growing areas are finding themselves unable to manage to keep up with rising rents. Desification isn't necessary due to limited supply of ground space, but could seem to be a better solution given the limited supply of land that's immediately "buildable". Having lived in the area, the idea of a candidate for Governor to run on a platform of "undoing the last 100 years" (at least in certain aspects) like Costner's character on "Yellowstone" doesn't seem terribly farfetched.
It probably doesn't help that almost half of the population growth in the state seems to have happened in Gallatin County (which went from having a population of around 40k in the 1990s to 130k or more now), although there seemed to be an awful lot of new development in/around Missoula over the last 10 years as well when I was back in town last summer.
Is this the Roundup junior? A Duplo version of Liz’s Legos?
The cheap Chinese store brand Duplo knock-off.
Unburdened by Trump Tariffs.
Which Liz? I hear ENB is on sandwich duty for 2024.
I’ll take mine on marbled rye.
Just how far is "fuck you, I got mine" supposed to go?
Fuck you, I got mine.
In my case it's 'fuck you I inherited mine' so hopefully, it goes much farther than allowed under current conditions. The ultimate wet dream of Libertarians is wall to wall projects being erected in Central Park, NYC and inhabited by 5,000,000 illegals.
You misspelled "Democrats".
No, the 5,000,000 illegals are in addition to the 8,000,000 democrats.
Getting the democrats packed into identifiable places just makes things easier down the road.
Biden did say we would need nukes to defeat them.
Hopefully all the way to a libertarian society.
I'm not against HOAs and restrictive covenants as a form of private governance, at least in theory. But when do they cross the line between voluntary organizations and the state? How much power should one individual or group of individuals have over other individuals' land use?
Whatever you believe about HOAs controlling land within their bounds it's pretty insane to believe that the rights of people not living in an HOA are being violated because they aren't subject to the rules of the HOA.
You are subject to the jurisdiction of local government and HOAs for the same reason: you buy into the land under their control. This is a voluntary choice in both cases. In terms of land use decisions, the HOA probably has more power than local government.
The primary difference between the two is that non-owners can vote for local government, while HOAs are usually governed by votes proportional to ownership.
So, I'm not sure what line you think is being crossed by government.
Does the hoa own the land you bought?
No. Neither does local government. Neither does the mining company I may have sold mining rights to or the airline that flies through my airspace nor the hunting club that I may have sold hunting rights to.
What are you trying to get at?
writing that they'd likely do "irreparable" damage to residents of single-family neighborhoods.
And he is right, much to the chagrin of our authoritarian writers at Reason.
Except that single-family neighborhoods with restrictive covenants are not harmed at all, since the bills specifically exempt them. While I agree with the judge's conclusion that the legislature's bills are confusing and may even be contradictory, I think it's laughable to conclude they violate equal protection when neighborhoods with private covenants are exempt while those without are not. That conclusion was the basis for his decision to grant a preliminary injunction.
Except that single-family neighborhoods with restrictive covenants are not harmed at all, since the bills specifically exempt them.
Many single family neighborhoods don't have restrictive covenants because they didn't need them: local government was sufficient. Why set up an HOA just to get the zoning you already have?
The legislation is trying to override local preferences by just imposing this de novo from above, knowing full well that single family neighborhoods don't have a chance in hell to create CC&Rs that reflect their actual preferences after the fact.
This is very common; it is how my last neighborhood worked: people liked building and acreage restrictions but otherwise wanted no further restrictions. We had an HOA but dissolved it because zoning took care of our preferences.
I don't necessarily disagree, I just find the legal reasoning employed by the judge in this case to be dubious.
Isn't that what the judge is saying? People suffer "irreparable damage" if these zoning changes are imposed on their neighborhoods.
"New York City's zoning code allows entertainment venues to allow patrons to dance in all manufacturing districts. The code nevertheless prohibits customer dancing in C-1 and C-5 commercial districts."
I can see all the illegals in the garment factories dancing for joy now.
How else are you going to have those gay NYC clubs like the ones depicted in the classic Al Pacino film ‘Cruising’?
For most Americans their home is by far their biggest investment. This applies mostly for lower and mid class people. If someone can easily build an SRO, duplex, or apartment building next door, your home becomes less attractive to future buyers and the value of the home declines, perhaps precipitously.
It is not unreasonable that someone would want to protect the value of their investment. Passing laws that eviscerate existing home values to benefit someone else does not seem right.
If one's home is an investment, then why would one not be subject to risk of loss as well as gain, like for any other asset? Is there a property right to a return on one's home?
I think the objection is changing the rules of the game in the 3rd quarter. Changing zoning like everything government does creates winners and losers. If those changes devalue your property you're likely to be pissed off.
If one’s home is an investment, then why would one not be subject to risk of loss as well as gain, like for any other asset? Is there a property right to a return on one’s home?
Crime and political failure are always risks for any asset you own. The fact that they occur doesn't make them either morally justifiable or economically neutral.
These zoning changes are a form of taking and redistribution.
They also will have the effect of discouraging both monetary and social investments in homes and neighborhoods, because they mean that as soon as a neighborhood becomes desirable, economically less well off people will move in and take advantage of what people built with their money. This is, of course, the long term objective of people passing these laws: the destruction of wealth, the destruction of inequality, and the leveling of society.
Except for the ultra-wealthy, of course: they can find legal loopholes to protect themselves.
Houses are not (generally, unless you rent them out) investments. That people think of them that way does not make them so anymore than any other Ponzi scheme. Houses do not inherently become more valuable with time. Land sometimes becomes more valuable, but sometimes it loses value. Like all investments, there is an element of risk. That risk has been hidden for some time because Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac, as pawns of US Government policy, decided that all Americans deserve a single family home with a white picket fence in the suburbs and have committed a great Ponzi scheme towards that end, but it's still there. Financial gravity will reassert itself eventually.
You can tell who doesn’t own anything.
Houses become more valuable with time in a lot of places due at least partly to inflation.
Houses are always a depreciating asset.
Houses frequently appreciate due to scarcity. Often, that scarcity is artificially created by politicians, but it is still scarcity. For example, in many places, a half century old, cheaply constructed, run-down home has become extremely valuable because having it lets you skip most of the permitting process for building the home you actually want.
No, inflation doesn't make things more valuable, it just changes the nominal price.
Houses are not (generally, unless you rent them out) investments.
Owner-occupied houses are effectively rented out.
Furthermore, even assets you hold that don't generate revenue or even incur costs are often investments, like oil and trees.
I doubt your fears about property value are really true. People are as reluctant to accept increased values (and taxes) as they are decreased values (which is mostly about racism not toxic waste dumps next door).
That said - overreliance on residential property for net worth is a huge problem. Not just for zoning. It also ensures that the market is distorted to subsidize house prices
Are you effing kidding? Property owners love property value appreciation.
And my supposed "overreliance on residential property" is no justification for you to destroy my property values via the political process.
The city also created new “inclusionary zoning” standards requiring developers of projects that contain more than 10 units in mixed-use zones to offer 10 percent of those new units at rates that are affordable to people making 60 percent of the area median income. That’s a pretty burdensome affordability requirement that will likely make a lot of smaller-scale apartment construction infeasible.
That’s a pretty big Post Script to YIMBY legislation…
Wait'll Reason discovers how many of the YIMBY activists support Rent Control.
Yeah, the YIMBY legislation pushed by progressives was always about central planning, not freedom. Reason shouldn't need constant reminders, yet....
It's a near irrelevant provision. The zoning map shows that there simply aren't many parcels of land in mixed zones. 50% of the land is single family of lowest density. 4% is mixed use zones of any density - at least half of which is too low density for even an apartment building.
Plus developers blow chunks at developing anything for mixed use. Mixed use is a relic of a time when we didn't need developers and big projects for cities to grow. Cities grew and infilled one property at a time
"YIMBY" is usually a misnomer. The people who pass it are not negatively affected by the legislation they pass. Usually, it is "YIYBY" (Yes In Your Back Yard) legislation.
How about an article on cities working to eliminate stroads?
"It's an odd idea indeed that people have a constitutional right to the protection of private covenants they didn't opt into."
I'll take "Tortured Legal Logic" for $500, Alex!
And the answer is, "This course is taught in law schools across America to help lawyers and judges by pass the English language and Logic 101."
"What is 'Microsoft Word for Legal Professionals,' Alex?"
Correct! and Judge Minderbinder takes over first place and control of the board!
I wouldn’t have a problem with duplexes in my neighborhood, except for parking. The houses on either side of me have extended families, so there are generally a couple of cars and a commercial van in each driveway and five to ten cars parked in the street in front of our houses. Not to mention when the guy with a cleaning service has three employees park there all day.
Provide sufficient off street parking for duplexes or it’s going to be a problem.
Not just residential parking either! The fix is in ... Walmart paid off the local officials to let them build a huge retail center with no plan to handle the excess traffic to and from the new facility. Traffic jams ensue, with the predictable side effects on existing businesses.
Not sure if you are agreeing there, but I think that may be the big hold up with a lot of folks. Building might not be the problem, it's that pieces of infrastructure don't get planned for taken care of or handled that gets folks up in arms.
From what I've seen in my little corner, that's typically the issue for already-existing home and business owners: Concerns about increased traffic, strains on fire and police resources, water infrastructure, etc., not necessarily the new homes/businesses themselves.
If there were only housing on one direction of the street, and if the lanes were wide enough, there would be adequate park for folks on boaf sidez.
Isn't it amazing that we zone for single family which requires increased land for parking everywhere else. Map of different cities showing % of city center land devoted to parking. Looks like a range of 6% for Boston to 30% for Houston. Add the amount of land for streets and highways there and in residential areas and on commercial arteries. That's a ton of land that generates no tax revenue but a lot of maintenance and other spending and prop tax distortions
Isn’t it amazing that we zone for single family which requires increased land for parking everywhere else.
That is correct. The freedom and economic prosperity that allows people to get on the property ladder has second order effects.
It's a bit like pointing out that the convenience of indoor plumbing and toilets required a lot of infrastructure to deal with the sewage... somewhere else.
Uhh, yes. Yes, that's 114.5% correct.
The granny flat, ADU thing can be a problem. If the market should decide, why are States making these regulations not cities? State regulation create flawed land use.
I have experience with what State (read authoritarian) control over zoning does to neighborhoods. It is starting to slowly happen in parts of California. Mostly in lower middle class single family areas. The State mandates that every city allow ADUs on every lot; actually worse than that but that's for a later comment. The State does not permit a City to require owner occupancy of the main unit or to mandate affordability. Further, the State prohibits cities from requiring parking and demands that cities allow garages to be converted leaving NO parking. So a developer comes in, buys a house, converts its garage and moves in two families. The is one neighborhood in the South Bay where this has happened to over half of the properties on the street. There is now zero street parking available. The existing older homeowners that have owned their houses for years, but are low income can't sell and move. If they have guests, it might require that they park a block or more away. The noise levels have raised with all the extra residents and since every property has an absentee owner, the maintenance is poor and several of these units are less than two years old. It is a slum in the making. The new units aren't really affordable, they are priced at the market rate, so they are also crowded. It is terrible city planning. High density apartments with amenities would be much better.
Libertarians need to learn this one quickly. The seed of the anti-zoning push comes from authoritarian rule. It is ultra liberal and is bad policy.
The is one neighborhood in the South Bay where this has happened to over half of the properties on the street. There is now zero street parking available
You think that’s an accident?
Democrats: “mission accomplished”.
The is one neighborhood in the South Bay where this has happened to over half of the properties on the street. There is now zero street parking available
You think that's an accident?
Democrats: "mission accomplished".
Well it is something that democrats seem to support. California Democrats do seem to love authoritarian rule. It's funny when they whine about "the end of democracy" if that fool Trump wins again. They don't care one bit about democracy ending. They just don't want Trump in office. I can agree with them on that, but not if the other option is more oppression.