|
Inept government limits growth
January 9, 2004
By Doug Doudney, President Coalition for Property Rights
Excerpted with permission from the Brevard Insider
Malabar, Florida
To submit a Letter to the Editor: escmc@aol.com
Last weekend the Orlando Sentinel reported that commissioner Ted
Edwards wants to schedule discussion time for the board to mull the
idea of strict caps on growth for the county. Since
this is only in discussion phase now, there are no particular details
to take a position on, but let's just discuss the concept in general.
The article said some developers might approve of the quota because it
would be a de facto guarantee of at least a certain amount of new
residential lot approvals.
This might be true and makes the point that being a developer does not
make one a Property Rights advocate.
Many developers are solidly pro-Property Rights, but many are simply
about pragmatism.
As long as they can get approval for their next deal, they don't care
what the government does to stifle rights of others.
In that vein, some will look at this quota idea in two favorable
lights:
1.) At least we can get this many lots approved this year, and
2.) If I get my share or more, the resulting artificial shortages can
make me rich!
Landowners already deal with environmental regulations, urban service
boundaries, NIMBY neighbors, market risks, competitive pressures,
political whims, bureaucratic requirements, impact fees, availability
of government services, etc. Aren't these enough? Should
we add annual quotas? What benefit could possibly come from a
contrived, arbitrary limit to annual residential approvals?
The Sentinel writes, "...Edwards said county leaders should
decide how much population growth is enough and stick to it."
After a thorough search of the writings of Adam Smith, John Locke and
Edmund Burke, this writer is unable to find a single reference by
these great writers (who inspired America's Founders) to suggest
political leaders should make decisions as to "how much growth is
enough."
The American model is to rely on markets to dictate demand -- government's
role is to keep up.
Maybe there's another way to look at the "discussion" of
quotas. Is this tantamount to government saying that it
can't keep up with the infrastructure requirements from our current
levels of growth?
Are the local leaders admitting they fail to keep up with any more
than the 2% growth suggested in the article?
Historically, anything more than 4% growth in local population would
make a big year. Why is it so hard for the county to keep up with
these needs?
Are we going to discuss limits of 2% for the convenience, for the
pleasure of government?
Does it displease Orange County to meet a greater demand than 2%?
Should a property owner be required to "wait his turn",
while paying taxes and all other overhead costs of ownership, simply
because the county can't be bothered to facilitate any more than 2%
growth?
Many politicians like to compare themselves with leaders of large
businesses.
What would the shareholders of any corporation do if their management
proposed such silly ideas?
No successful business owner would keep a manager who had such on his
mind.
From this perspective, the proposal to discuss growth limitations is
tantamount to admission of failure by our government; a statement of
inability to perform its obligation to those who pay involuntary taxes
for services which might be refused under a quota plan.
THIS IS EFFECTIVELY A MASSIVE OVER-REACH BY GOVERNMENT INTO THE
CONTROL OF LANDS THAT IT DOESN'T OWN! IN OUR PROPERTY
SYSTEM, WE HAVE GOT TO COME TO A CONCLUSION OF WHO OWNS LAND. THE
DISCUSSION WE NEED IN ORANGE COUNTY IS NOT ABOUT GROWTH CONTROLS, BUT
OWNERSHIP RIGHTS: WHO REALLY CONTROLS LAND, AND HOW ARE OWNERS' RIGHTS
GOING TO BE PROTECTED?
Governments have the ultimate growth management tool in the form of
moratorium powers.
Whenever growth has gotten so rampant or government has been too
derelict in keeping up with a local hot spot, it can place a
moratorium on a finite area for a set period of time in order for
infrastructure to catch up with demand.
This power is to be used cautiously and only in case of extreme need,
but has been properly used before.
The idea of county-wide percentage based limits is arbitrary and
pointless.
If the quota discussions take place, we should also discuss closing
our economic development office and saving its budget costs.
We have been making mass efforts to bring hi-tech employment into
central Florida. Why bother recruiting if we can't offer housing to
the vaunted new jobs?
Just when you think you've heard it all.
Brevard Insider is published 5 times a week except holidays at
1106 Ramblebrook St., Malabar, Florida 32950. 321-956-0815.
Fax: 321-956-8762. ESCMC@aol.com
Copyright 2003. Publisher Pond Press, Inc. Editor:
Edward S. Clark. Assistant editor: Dan Warrensford.
Contributing editors Doug Doudney, J. D. Tucker, Michael Moehle, Bob
Brewster, David Russell, Chuck Morley, Bill Love, Julie Kay Smithson.
Contrarian: Robert D. Clark. Webmaster and Electronic
distribution: Tim Wooley. Subscription price $6.50 per
month.
|