Libido Dominandi – literally translated from Latin means the lust to dominate, or the lust for power. This is a good general description of what drives many politicians, and is certainly apt in describing the Conway City Council’s latest project.
The latest ill-conceived project will require that the city use an Arkansas law that may have constitutional problems. It sure looks as if the law (Arkansas State Code ACA 14-56-413) may have constitutional problems in this case.
Of course there will be public hearings and all the proper nods and courtesies to insure the citizens of Faulkner County who are affected are given the opportunity to provide input. From the conversation at last Tuesday night’s meeting, it seems some on the council have already made their decision, so it may be that public hearings are more pro-forma than informational or useful.
The city council has decided that it’s time to take advantage of that dubious Arkansas law to impose city zoning in an area up to two miles outside the city limits. Some on the council are adamant that this is not a zoning ordinance, and that the city is not establishing city zoning outside of the city limits. The document describing the proposed action is titled “Synopsis of Proposed Zoning Ordinance Amendments Creating a T-2 Rural Zone and Supporting Revisions.” I supposed using the word zoning in the document title may be incorrect, but what of the many references to existing zoning ordinances? I suppose the council can call it whatever they want, but if it walks like a duck and quacks like a duck…
It should not be the responsibility of disenfranchised citizens to persuade our city council to leave them alone. This is not an action to bring county territory into the city, where the affected residents get to vote on whether they want to be part of the city or not; this is imposing city control and fees over county residents who have no recourse and certainly no vote.
Some on the council think the rural zone is needed, but that the regulations recommended are too stringent while others think it doesn’t go far enough and want to put full city zoning in this two mile zone surrounding the city. Each has constituent input that they will listen to, but again it seems many of those present had already made up their mind that the zone is needed in one form or fashion or another.
That may be well and good for residents of the city. It will serve to keep “undesirable” land use away from those living on the city limits. Of course what is undesirable to you may be perfectly wonderful to me. What about those who live in the county and will be affected by this ordinance? Some people move to the county from the city because they don’t want to be bothered with people telling them how to use their property. Many of them pre-date the city limits moving out to them; they were there first. What of their rights?
There may be a constitutional problem with the law under which the city justifies this project (Arkansas State Code ACA 14-56-413). That problem is taxation without representation. Most people in the county will see no effect, but some will; those that wish to run a business from their home or create a subdivision will have to comply with city regulations and ordinances including procuring conditional use permits. Any use other than residential or agriculture will not only need a conditional use permit, but will have to comply with city sign regulations among other requirements.
If the city doesn’t like what the non-city landowner wants to do with their land, the city can refuse to issue the conditional use permit. The city does it all the time to city residents.
A resident of the county will be required to pay for permits which are not needed for the same development elsewhere in the county, or they may be prevented from a land use that is legal and accepted in other parts of the county, and they don’t have the right to vote for or against the city council members that are taxing them. It is taxation without representation, pure and simple.
Businesses already in existence will be able to keep their current signs as long as they stay in business, but selling your business to someone else will require a conditional use permit and a change to conforming signage. Close your garage and open a body shop and you’ll have to get a permit and change your sign. In other parts of the county you would not be bound by these ridiculous requirements that your use of your own property be controlled by someone who is not answerable to you on Election Day.
It is wrong to limit peoples’ rights using a suspect law just because you can. It is not good that those living on the city limits may have nuisance land use right over their fence, but the land use over your fence shouldn’t be a surprise, and if it is but it’s legal, the landowner over the fence has as much right to use of their land for whatever legal purpose they wish to.
This project, as well intentioned as it may be, is another case of the government declaring winners and losers. It’s not government’s job to do that, and it certainly is not government’s purpose to tax citizens who have no representation. There was this thing called a Revolution which settled that issue. Taking away God-given rights is not acceptable, no matter what good the government wants to accomplish by doing so.
The Conway City Council again proves it is full of good intentions. Unfortunately the road to Hell is also paved with them.
Count me in the category of those who think the rural zone is needed, but the ordinance as it is proposed is much too restrictive.
I asked if the ordinance could be carved up into portions. As it stands, I cannot vote for the whole. I can only support the part which protects city residents from the most impacting of land use – industrial, manufacturing, and heavy commercial.
I am not interested in forcing county property owners to adhere to the city’s sign ordinance or requiring them to obtain conditional use permits to run their small businesses. However, if someone wants to use their 40 acres just outside the city limits to start a 24×7 gas-service industry, then the council has a responsibility and a duty to protect its residents from that kind of impact.
There are no city ordinances that can extend outside of the political boundaries of the city to regulate the noise, lighting, pollution, or other impacts that a large-scale business like these can have on quiet residential areas. The county and state lawmaking bodies are not able/willing to address the issues. Therefore, it is left up to the cities to do what they can to protect their residents, and this is the ONLY manner in which Conway can legally act in this regard.
This addresses your comment that “land use over your fence shouldn’t be a surprise.” You’re right, it shouldn’t be, and my proposal of this law would keep it such that nobody who’s lived in a quiet neighborhood for 20+ years should wake up one morning to be surprised that they now have a loud, bright, nasty industrial facility literally over their fence.
Full disclosure – Mr. Vaught is a city councilman in Conway and a friend of the Constitution and of the author.
We understood Mark’s position was that the proposed changes to the Conway zoning ordinances were too stringent, and mentioned that, but chose to not identify those on the council who took the various positions, instead hoping they would reply here to air their viewpoints. Mr. Vaught has done so. In the spirit of respectful debate, we reply.
While he is not interested in forcing county residents to adhere to city sign ordinances and conditional use permits, Mr. Vaught is interested in preventing land use that is currently legal in the county. That position is reflective of his constituents opinion, and he is to be commended for listening to those who elected him. The position Mr. Vaught is taking protects his constituents and is legal.
Unfortunately that does not change the fact that county residents will be required to comply with regulations, no matter how onerous or trivial, that are imposed by a government for which they did not vote and cannot vote to change.
As to the matter of not being surprised by land use over your fence, county property is eligible for heavy industrial use, and even if it isn’t there today, it may be tomorrow.
The city’s attempt “to protect their residents” by preventing allowable use of county land cannot be resolved without county residents rights being infringed. The level to which county residents will be affected is irrelevant.
What the city is contemplating is legal, and is in the best interests of city residents, but it does depend on a constitutionally challenged state regulation for authority and it does diminish one group’s freedom to protect another.
And the road to hell is still paved with good intentions.
This is a classic libertarian vs. conservative discussion. The opinion that government should never impede one’s liberty to provide security for another is noble, grounded in proper conservative philosophy, and sometimes very difficult to put into actual practice when dealing with issues such as this.
I don’t like the idea that county property owners (an intentional distinction from “county residents” that I wrote in my first post) will have some aspect of their property regulated by a legislative body with which they can have no part in the electoral process. It’s constitutionally wrong, and I understand that.
The distinction here is that most county residents would not be impacted by my preferred version of the city’s implementation of the authority granted to them by the state legislature. Residential and light-to-moderate business use should not be addressed by the city in any fashion. Since most county residents would fall into either residential land use or light-to-moderate business land use (small home-based business, etc.), they would likely not be impacted.
However, land used in manners mentioned in my previous comments that do impact neighboring properties in a negative way are never occupied by “county residents”. In fact, most of these facilities are owned by out-of-state corporations that would not have the right to vote for any elected official – city, county, or state – that was charged with the authority to set policy regulating the land use.
In other words, unless the property owner actually lives at the industrial facility, those who own property regulated by my proposal of this ordinance ALREADY lack representation by any of the lawmaking bodies involved in this process.
That’s the important distinction between “county residents” and “county property owners”. If the latter do not have the ability to be represented either way (and not that I take the lack of representation lightly), then I believe that part of the argument falls by the wayside.
Everything you say is correct if your assumption that the property owner does not live on the site is true and the property owner is not a county resident. A resident who wants to use their property for something legal, even if they don’t live there, still has a right to do so. And what of the county resident/land owner who leases part of their property for a gas well or other noisy, glaring industrial purpose. Should they be prevented from using their property in a legal manner?
Add to that the county resident who has been there for 20 years and the city came to them; should they be precluded from a legal use of their property because the city closed the proximity to them?
I’ve spent too many years watching while a project that was supposed to be “good” ended up causing more harm than benefit. When you abridge a right you take away freedom, no matter how much good you think you’re doing.
Were I in your situation I would have to look at the “greater good”, whether there was some “wrong” that was needed to make a “right”. You owe your constituents a solution that’s best for them. My question is at what cost?
It’s a slippery slope, as you describe when you said that invoking the law to prevent nuisances turned into “If I had my way all the city zoning ordinances would be enforced on the county”. There were also comments to the effect that the city’s going to take that area over anyway, why not start bringing them up to standards now. Pure arrogance; what if the voters who live there vote to not be part of the city. There’s a presumption that everyone wants to live in the city. Until someone checks, I don’t know that’s true.
I do respect your judgment and beliefs, but I believe we will have to agree to disagree on this issue.