Don't Let City Hall Get You Down

Don't Let City Hall Get You Down
by Michael R. Allen

Former Speaker Tip O'Neill will always be remembered -- his corruption notwithstanding -- for coining the phrase, "all politics is local." If the esteemed gentleman from Massachusetts is correct, then politics is a dangerous tool. As the federal government faces mild and, occasionally, trenchant criticism, local governments have not been watched as studiously as is necessary to preserve liberties.

Since the logical place to begin dismantling the unnecessary functions of government is at the federal level, the 1990s saw something of a bureaucratic shift to local governments. Yes, power should be close to home, and states should have rights against the federal government; I will not give credence to the Fourteenth amendment's twisted centralism. But I reserve the right to not get screwed by City Hall.

Municipal governments, especially urban ones, are given to fund many questionable ventures, such as sports facilities, public transit and garbage collection. All of these functions are done much better by the private sector -- without budget overruns and without stealing my money.

In fact, municipal government is the most directly threatening level of government because it is so close to the people. And it is arguably much easier to manipulate because less money and pressure is required than to lobby, say, the federal government. Often, the gullible locals will accept the notion that multi-million dollar sports franchises need to rob the taxpayers blind for new stadiums. Or that providing water, gas and sewers is a necessary facet of government that the market could never duplicate.

There is also the problem of local zoning enforcement. In many cities, one must get a permit to make interior changes to his own property. Other cities restrict the size of buildings, their height, their color and even their architectural style. Zoning laws are sold as being for the good of the public. Or they are promoted under historical district premises. Either way, they corrupt market forces and restrict property rights.

If one wants to build an incompatible building in an historic district, he should be able to. His neighboring property owners will not be pleased, and he will deal with their unhappiness. His building will cause a drop in the property values of the neighborhood, which will affect him. If he does not mind, then so be it. However, the neighborhood's natural order will normally sort out the property owners' decisions to mutual benefit provided all involved in response to the market. If not, then there is an ugly building that doesn't match its neighborhood. Worse could happen, like as a city-owned water main bursting in January.

Zoning laws may produce outcomes which do not upset squeamish neighbors, but they destroy any semblance of personal expression. In San Antonio, writer Sandra Cisneros has painted her home a nice purple hue. Some upstarts in her area are were incensed at her choice of color. Cisneros lives in an historic district where most homes are of an unoffensive white. While I'm sure every home owner in her neighborhood can prove that their home has never been painted anything but white, no one is forcing them to look at Cisneros' home. Have they also not thought that Cisneros does not like to see white homes around hers?

The tail-chasing debate caused by silly zoning laws only shows how foolish people behave when they are given the power to use force against another person. The relatively peaceful market processes that account for human nature should be allowed to govern this matter, not premeditated zoning codes.

Equally egregious is the use of eminent domain, once reserved for road construction and now used in place of black-suited thugs for stadium builders and casino owners. In a high-profile case, Donald Trump attempted to use eminent domain to level a private residence for a limousine parking lot, but was rebuked by a state judge in New Jersey. Eminent domain, whether for a jail (when it is a public use) or for a casino parking lot (an outrageous private use), is legalized theft.

Implicit in eminent domain law is that property ownership is not absolute. A city government is given the right to steal even if the land is going to be acquired for a private developer.

As the observer can see from studying local government, all government is the brute force that destroys freedom. Power sometimes is best when it is closer to the people, but an astute observer will see that it is far better when it does not exist at all.

www.american-partisan.com