It’s been a long day, so I just quickly want to mention Wednesday’s editorial by Bruce Ramsey in the Seattle Times: “What kind of law let’s your neighbor shut you down?”
Ramsey writes about the plight of a Greenlake B&B that has run afoul of a local zoning ordinance after complaints by an ornery neighbor. Councilman Richard Conlin, who wrote the law in question, says shutting down such B&Bs is not what he intended, and that the ordinance may need to be modified. But the owners are suing to have the ordinance tossed out entirely on grounds that it unconstitutionally restricts their right to earn a living. As Ramsey points out, this could have far reaching implications if they prevail:
It suggests that your neighbors shouldn’t be able to stop you from working at home unless your work harms them in some verifiable way
Restrictions, aka zoneing, overlap on our property rights and the peaceful use of them. But, if they did not exist, we would have a mess. They are meant to discriminate. Whether they have went too far or not is a matter of concern. In some recent cases, the property owners are encroaching on other’s rights and in some respect, other recent cases, I see it as it is the government that is unfairly pushing the limit. Eminent domain laws are open for misuse of power by government. The people are the ones who must press for balanced zoneing. I see that going on all around. The Zone Bible often carries along old concepts and needs to be revisited for the needs of today. There is room for expansion and that does not mean more restrictions.
I think Conlin had a reasonable reaction to the situation when he said “shutting down such B&Bs is not what he intended, and that the ordinance may need to be modified.”
Why is it so hard for people to accept responses like that? We make laws, sometimes the laws have unintended consequences, so we amend them. If the law’s bad enough, or no longer needed, we can repeal it. Same thing with zoning restrictions. They serve a purpose at the time they’re created (whether you agree with that purpose), and then sometimes need to be revisited later.
A good example are the height/width restrictions on downtown office buildings in Seattle. In the mid-80s everyone “freaked out” and passed height caps because they feared massive skyscrapers. Now, there’s virtually no resistance to lifting those caps, because the situation has changed (people want a denser, more business-friendly downtown).
Another example – I totally support the building industry/developers on raising the height cap on Broadway in Capitol Hill too. See, the building industry and individuals can get along when they’re reasonable and actually demonstrate there is benefit for each side.
Why does the BIAW and other “property rights” zealots have to jump to the “any restriction on my property is BS” line of thinking?
My favorite line from the guy bringing the complaint is: This brings strangers into our neighborhood.
Obviously even his own neighbors are strangers, otherwise he would have know what was going on. Besides, the type of people that would stay at a B&B are not the ones he needs to worry about.
There are two issues at play here. Quality of life and property rights. Zoning issues have to balance both. In Tacoma you are allowed a home based business as long as it does not have the appearance of a store front and traffic is limited. It has worked well here for years. B&B’s have done very well with no problems with neighbors.
jcricket@2.
Majority of ordinances will be found to be written by a majority of offficals seated in any particular term. Some are are passed for personal gain, conflict of interest. Others for genuine interest of the public at large. The issue of intent of an old (poorly written) ordinance crops up from time to time. Much much later elected officials having to try to decipher what was the intent of past officials. Despite an ordinance’s clause, clause that says it does not throw out the whole Ord. when found to be lacking, it makes it harder to enforce. Point being, yearly the Ord. books need to be cleaned. As you say, amended. What you pay city attorneys for is to write and amend Ords, Municipal Research compiles the Ords. I agree with your post.
Random thoughts (in no particular order):
1. Many of Europe’s castles have been converted to tourist attractions because it’s gotten hard to maintain them as private residences on a king’s meager income. At the rate Seattle’s real estate prices are going up, soon we’ll all be running B & Bs and selling souvenirs.
2. Legislative bodies are reactive, not proactive, bodies. Legislation gets passed because somebody complained, and people complain when there’s a problem.
3. Every neighborhood has a grouch who complains just for the sake of complaining. This personality type likes to read zoning laws and municipal ordinances.
4. As a corollary to #2 above, our freedom to swing our arms ends where our neighbors’ noses begin, and in a city the noses are closer together.
5. Considering what White Eyes has done to the land in a mere 150 years, it’s not surprising the Indians tried to run us off their land.
6. It is well established in law that a land use restriction is not a taking unless it deprives the landowner of all potential uses of the property.
7. For an example of an urban community with minimal land use restrictions, see Mexico City.
8. Considering what White Eyes has done to the land in a mere 150 years, it’s not surprising the Indians are fleecing us in their casinos.
9. If you let one person run a B & B in his house, you have to let everyone do it.
10. Municipal ordinances, like plutonium, last 25,000 years even though their useful life is 1 billionth of a second.
11. As a corollary to #3 above, some people are going to bitch no matter what you do, just for the sake of bitching.
12. Considering what White Eyes has done to the land in a mere 150 years, it’s not surprising the Indians are laughing their asses off at our bickering over land use regulations.
So Don–
You aren’t a “white eyes” living on Indian land???
Another pathetic, hypocritical, feel-good LEFTIST who talks the talk yet stumbles instead of walks.
Don–put your “guilt and remorse” feelings into action…
Abandoned YOUR property to the Indians and leave!!
What…that’s foolish???
So Don…your point is? NOTHING!!
Of course there’s no point, Dolt! That’s why it’s labeled “Random Thoughts.”
Don @ 5 so you woke up our favorite troll again huh, keep up the good work. His shady clients are the ones paying for his follies. Remember we should be ‘friendly’ to him, as he has what is called ‘micropenis’ and Mrs. C. (bless her heart) has a big apetite in all things that his ‘micro friend’ cannot satisfy
I don’t know – these folks hounded the City to have the law changed to allow B & B’s – special treatment in and of itself – still didn’t manage to comply, and entered the process with open eyes. They’re not exactly martyrs, in my view (that said, anyone who lives by a regional park such as Green Lake had better be prepared to having a lot of “strangers” in the neighborhood).
Cynical @ 6
You go first, since it’s your idea.
jp @ 9
Yeah, I figure out which fern the troll is sleeping under, then piss on it. Works every time! :D