Posted on 11/24/2015 5:08:23 AM PST by marktwain
The North Carolina Supreme Court upheld one of the most basic principles of United States law this month. The law has been under continual attack for the last hundred years, during the rise of the “progressive†state.
A great many zoning ordinances around the country are based on “model†legislation that is pushed by central planners. One of the stated premises in the legislation is that anything that is not permitted is forbidden. From a discussion of a previous zoning case in North Carolina:
Virtually all zoning ordinances are based on the premise that the ordinance shall list certain land uses that are permitted in each zoning district and that those uses not expressly permitted are prohibited. Indeed, the “permitted-use table†is a staple in most ordinances. If a new activity arises on the zoning scene that does not qualify as a listed permitted use, then it is presumed that the use is not allowed unless the ordinance is amended specifically to allow it.
That case involved the ability to use property to exercise Second Amendment rights. The owner of the property had been using it as a shooting range, the property had been annexed by a nearby village, they said the use as a shooting range was not allowed because it was not mentioned in the zoning ordinance. The appeals court upheld the use of the property for a range, and the case did not go to the North Carolina Supreme Court.
(Excerpt) Read more at ammoland.com ...
TJ said: what makes a man truly free is the “right” to do with his own property as he so chooses.
Zoning laws in general are a perfectly legitimate use of government power. In my experience, the problem comes when you have business establishments that aren’t covered under a zoning code because they either didn’t exist at the time the code was written, or were never envisioned as a possible land use.
Zoning laws are tools of corruption and violate the Takings Clause.
You might have a point in a rural area with little or no government-funded infrastructure in place, but once a property is serviced by public utilities it has to come under government regulation simply to ensure that the public infrastructure can support the use of the property.
The design of a sewage treatment plant, for example, is based on water consumption rates tied to specific land uses. Zoning laws are intended to ensure that the use of your property doesn't cause harm to someone else's use of THEIR property.
Elites? Local elected officials are the closest to the community. Does the simple fact that they were elected make them elite?
If you have dealt with and worked with local officials, you know that there are local elites. There are natural leaders in every group. Even in small towns, there develops a local group of those “in the know” and who “can get things done”.
They often remain in power for decades.
If you look at who zoning laws benefit, and who manipulates them to their advantage, it is the local elites.
“Zoning laws are intended to ensure that the use of your property doesn’t cause harm to someone else’s use of THEIR property.”
That is the excuse the central planners push. If that were the case, there would be no need to have the clause that everything not allowed is illegal.
Cities have grown and prospered *without* zoning laws. Regulation can be done without granting the government major control over your property.
Zoning is designed to give enormous power to the local elites that control it.
That is a pretty huge ruling, if his commentary on it is correct. Totally changes the landscape (so to speak) of zoning in the state.
Maybe the North Carolina zoning code in question said this, but I am not sure that is common in land use law. The ones I'm familiar with do not have such a stipulation, which means the codes have to be comprehensive and descriptive enough to cover every conceivable land use. Interestingly, in my professional experience zoning laws have usually been used to protect the rights of property owners, not restrict them. I have been involved in a number of projects that never would have been permitted in a political process or in a zoning board hearing, but they had to be approved by the local jurisdiction because they met the letter of the law.
Cities have grown and prospered *without* zoning laws. Regulation can be done without granting the government major control over your property.
Houston is an example of this. They don't call it zoning, but they regulate it anyway ... usually through endless lawsuits and/or a political process. When you see how the process works, it really doesn't protect a property owner at all. What's the difference between regulation and zoning?
For one thing, the zoning code is passed through a duly-elected legislative process. Secondly, a property owner also has the ability to seek a variance for any number of reasons (hardship, the impractical nature of the zoning code in a particular situation, the public benefit for a proposed use, etc.).
Well, yeah. We tend to elect people who have leadership abilities. That's just a natural outcome of our democratic process.
It doesn't change the fact that if enough people don't like the zoning process they can elect new leaders.
“For one thing, the zoning code is passed through a duly-elected legislative process.”
There was no zoning in Yuma County, Arizona, until 1977. In that year a zoning ordinance was put before the public in a referendum. It was soundly rejected. The County Board then enacted the ordinance anyway, saying that they could not recieve federal money unless the County had zoning in place.
Zoning came to most of America the same way. It was forced on counties in order to receive money from the Federal government. It has long been national police to push zoning all across the U.S., even in places where it is not needed and not desired.
Zoning is a primary tool of central planners. I have read the Yuma zoning code, and it has the “everything is forbidden except that which is allowed” clause.
As to seek a variance, that is correct. If you wish to do something outside of what the code specifically allows, then you have to go and beg the local government for permission.
“police to push” should be “policy to push”
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.