How do you reconcile urban planning and private property rights?
I've had a difficult time reconciling my respect for free markets and private property rights with the need for planning in urban and suburban development. When you think about it, it's a bit of a paradox: on one hand, a private landowner should be able to do whatever she wants to maximize her property's value. On the other hand, private landowners should be able to voluntarily associate and agree to standards that maximize the value of everyone's property. (And remember, value is not only measured in dollars.)
For me, the key is voluntary association as a means of self-determination. We freely chose to live in Cary, North Carolina -- a suburban town with extraordinarily strict zoning, sign, and planning regulations. We like the fact that there are no billboards, almost all utilities are underground, and signs are minimalist and fit in with the environment. Have you ever seen a Biscuitville? While I've never actually eaten there, you can't miss them: they're typically clad in bright yellow siding. Where we live, though, even the Biscuitville is brick.
On top of that, we further chose to live in a neighborhood with lots of restrictive covenants, and even an architectural committee that approves paint colors and exterior remodeling. Why? Well, we liked the way the houses are kept up, and even though the kids aren't going to know the joy of a keeping a goat in the backyard, we don't have to worry about our neighbors collecting junk cars in their front yard, either.
But here's where I see a problem: while we voted with our tax and homeowner's association dollars to live here, many folks have different priorities and value their ability to live with less regulation in unincorporated Wake County. However, in direct defiance of private property rights and economic self-determination, Cary has been on the involuntary annexation warpath for much of the past decade. That's where the Town of Cary steps up and identifies surrounding land that it would like to "own" as part of its tax base, and kicks off a well-described process to annex affected landowners.
Since North Carolina law gives cities and towns this ability to annex your land involuntarily, you can be a retiree happily living on your homestead on a fixed income, and then receive a notice in the mail that you are being assessed $10,000, or $20,000, to hook into your new city's water and sewer system. Additionally, you're going to be assessed additional taxes for fire and police protection.
Forget about the fact that you have a well and septic system that's served you for thirty years. Forget about the fact that you used to volunteer for, and still support, the volunteer fire department. And forget about the fact that you just don't have the money... and when you're hit with medical bills for your sick spouse, what do you do then? Sell the house you were going to leave to your children?
Can this happen in America? Unfortunately it can, and does. What on earth would possess a town to do this?
Typically it's development. It's not that the town really wants to run over the retiree or rural landowner who has lived there for thirty years. More likely, however, there is a big parcel of land nearby that's turning into a mixed use development or new high-density subdivision. It's easier for the developers if the city provides municipal services, and the city wants to increase the tax base, but existing landowners are often caught in the crossfire.
So my conclusion is that if we truly respected private property rights and forbade involuntary annexation, cities and towns would grow in a much more deliberate, and sensitive, fashion.
If cities required landowner consent before annexing property, the developer of the new subdivision could certainly sign up for services, but the adjoining landowners would have a seat at the table and not be hit with "unfunded mandates" that threaten their financial security. If it's worth it to the developer, perhaps the developer and town negotiate a reasonable compromise with the retiree for his water and sewer connection. That's the sort of conversation neighborly folks ought to have.
To learn more about involuntary annexation, and sign a petition to fight it in North Carolina, visit StopNCAnnexation.com.
:: 
:: 
:: 
:: 
:: 
:: 
:: 
:: 
:: 
:: 
Printer-friendly version
It is a shame that we don't *truly* respect property rights. A friend of mine was actually annexed by Cary and he did have to pay to hook up to the water like you mentioned. I don't understand exactly why they force this. Why not allow the property owner to not be connected?
BD,
Good order doesn't have to be planned. Only when there is singularity of purpose does planning become an efficient way to allocate resources. And even then the results suffer from not knowing "What might have been," or, as Henry Hazlit says with Bastiat, The Seen and the Unseen.
While you enjoy the codes and restrictions of your neighborhood, and your brick Biscuitville (it's an acquired taste), you don't really know how much you are paying for them. It's worth it to you and that's fine. And the developer perceived a market for a particular style of housing correctly, and that's fine. But imposing such a pattern on individuals who didn't freely choose it is what creates the problem.
In a freer world they would be left to themselves until it became worth it to someone to pay them to move out, at which point all parties would be happier.
As it stands, the developers force the cost of buying that land back onto the rightful owner through arbitrary political-legal methods.
Its a crime.
jurisnaturalist, great points.
And I don't mean to imply that the town and developer should strongarm the retiree to accept the annexation by making the water/sewer connection less painful. Although I imagine that happens in practice.
The bottom line is that the town is a potentially abusive force when it can force folks to take its monopoly for water, sewer, and protection. Ultimately, it seems that our challenge as a model municipal government is to present a cost/benefit argument to serve adjoining areas that would compel folks to seek voluntary annexation.
Really your question is about spatial change and growth in general, is it not? The trouble with the choice of home-ownership is that it is very inflexible, so that an owner can not respond at will to just any change in his immediate environment. At least not without substantial costs. In this way, it is a little different from many other economic decisions we make.
But cities do change. They grow (or shrink) in population and infrastructure. How can we expect the conditions that prompted the original rational decision to purchase to remain static? Annexation is only one of many potential changes that could adjust an owners decisions. There are zoning changes. Changes in the local job market. Hey, even natural disasters or personal situations. In a perfect libertarian system the individual would be able to give consent before any of these things happen, but in the real world these fluctuates are unavoidable.
I would just add the possibility of annexation to the risk that home owners assume when making the decision to purchase. Sure, it's best to keep the risk as low as possible, but nobody can expect to be sheltered entirely from the effects of environmental change.
A provocative question!
Barry,
I am sorry it has taken me so long to respond to your post.
I am in total agreement with you about not forcing annexation and regulations telling business owners and developers what they can and can’t build.
I do agree that HOA’s can make up their own regulations. Just as developers can make up their own restrictive convents in order to have the development reflect what they want.
But my problem with your post is saying that value is not measured in dollars. For example, a person having an emotional attachment to a piece of land, to a necklace, etc would be willing to pay more for that item than someone who did not have the emotional attachment. Therefore, your emotional attachment is reflective in the value of dollars. In order for us to actually be able to see how much someone values something we have to have a quantitative measurement – that is when dollars come into play. I cannot actually measure how much you “like” something without seeing how much you would pay for it or how many you have – which people would have typically purchased and paid a dollar amount for. Someone enjoying the vacant land beside them because they like the peacefulness of the area but does not own the land beside them and wants to try and regulate what the landowner can do with their own land is in my opinion a thief. They are taking away value from that person which is stealing something that they do not own. They do have the right to purchase the land from the landowner and thus they can then determine what they want to do with the land. However if you are worried about a toxic waste dump being placed next to your house then obviously your value of your house would go down, that is when you have the right to sue the neighboring landowner for the devaluation of your property – but the court system would only be able to see the devaluation in a measurement of dollars. If the neighbor could not come up with the money then you should be able to take their land, their toxic waste dump whatever it may be. I would not decide to build a dump next to you if I knew that I face the chance of losing my dump and land, so I would make the rational decision to not place that there. But I might build multi-million dollar houses, or a commercial area that would actually increase your value. And if a person does not think that it actually increases their value then they have the right to purchase the land and change what might go in beside them, and they are showing how much they value something. Just as if someone buys 2 acres for $2,000.00 and another 2 acres for $200,000.00 obviously there was more value to the seller and buyer of the 2nd 2 acres.
Post new comment