The Challenge to Zoning Advocates

In the mid-2000s, residents of Hobbs, New Mexico were debating a proposal to implement comprehensive zoning. I was hired as a consultant to fight the proposed zoning ordinance. The article below was published in the local newspaper.

$ $ $

Zoning proponents have presented zoning as the solution to many of the “problems” confronting Hobbs. At a time when the nation, and indeed much of the world, is rejecting government programs as the solution, zoning advocates endorse a massive government program as the solution to problems both real and imagined.

Zoning advocates have made many claims about the “benefits” of zoning. Yet, they can provide no examples which substantiate their claims. They cannot point to a single municipality which does not experience higher housing costs, higher taxes, higher business costs, corruption, or other negative effects as a result of zoning. All they can offer is the promise that these things won’t happen in Hobbs.

The challenge to zoning advocates is to prove why Hobbs will not suffer these same detrimental consequences. It is easy to make claims, it is another thing to prove them. It is easy to say that Hobbs is different from other cities, it is another thing to explain and prove why.

We agree that Hobbs is different from other cities, but for a reason entirely different than what zoning advocates would have us believe. We believe that the citizens of Hobbs have a respect for property rights, for the right to pursue values which may not be generally accepted, but which do not violate the rights of others. We believe that the citizens of Hobbs value their freedom.

There is a fundamental difference between zoning advocates and our organization, not just in terms of property rights and land use controls, but also in regard to the value placed on individual human beings.

Where zoning advocates believe that individuals should be compelled to sacrifice their values to those of the community, the neighborhood, or some other collective, we believe that individuals should be free to pursue their own values without interference from others.

The debate over zoning is a debate about the future of Hobbs. It is a debate which must be taken seriously. It is a debate which cannot be conducted via unsubstantiated claims of cost-free benefits and ad hominem attacks on the opponents. It is a debate which must be conducted on the principles which underlie zoning, and its alternatives. A “debate” conducted on anything less is not a debate, but a negotiation of the details of the implementation of commonly accepted principles. There are no common principles between zoning and freedom.

The challenge to the advocates of zoning is to explain why the citizens of Hobbs should willingly sacrifice their property rights. The challenge to the advocates of zoning is to explain why Hobbsans should reject the principles of the United States Constitution. The challenge to the advocates of zoning is to justify the use of force to compel their fellow citizens to accept and live by their vision of proper land use.