The Fundamental Nature of Zoning

A graphic at the beginning of a recent article about short-term rentals (STRs) in the Dallas area illustrates the fundamental nature of zoning. In the graphic, it is stated that the zoning ordinance adopted by Grapevine in 1982 did not permit STRs. It is implied that if a particular use is not explicitly permitted, then it is prohibited.

According to this view, owners may use their property only with the permission of government officials, who will determine which land uses are legal and which are illegal. Property owners cannot act as they choose–by right–but only with the approval of government.

This is an inversion of the principles of the Constitution, which restricts the powers of government by explicitly identifying what the government may properly do. Under zoning, the powers of government are virtually unlimited, and it is the actions of individuals that are restricted. This is the fundamental nature of zoning.

The right to property means the freedom to create, use, keep, trade, and dispose of material values as one deems best. It means the freedom to act on one’s own judgment. But zoning renders one’s judgment irrelevant and makes property owners subservient to the demands of zoning officials.

As one example, the article cites Kari Perkins, a property owner who operates an STR. The rent received has helped her to pay her mortgage, assist her sister, and pursue a doctorate degree. However, Grapevine’s ban on STRs may force her to abandon her plans for her doctorate. While she clearly thinks that operating an STR is beneficial and promotes her flourishing, she will be prohibited from acting on her judgment.

The opponents of STRs don’t like the decisions that some property owners make. Rather than use reason to persuade, they seek the coercive power of government to dictate and control.