The City of Hobbs and the “Public’s Interest”
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.
$ $ $
On October 30, 2005 an Editorial in this newspaper stated that the city commission should work “to ensure the public’s interest is protected.”
There is no such entity as “the public”. The public consists of individuals. And each individual has different interests and values. To pursue the “public’s interest” is to pursue the interests of some individuals, and sacrifice the interests of others.
This is precisely what has already occurred in Hobbs. To date, the City has spent $300,000.00 or more on consultants for the purpose of developing land use regulations. This money comes from taxpayers. As a result, those who oppose zoning (and those who are neutral) are forced to pay for the development of a plan they oppose or do not care about.
In addition, opponents of zoning are forced to spend money to defend their rights through forums such as this. Such individuals are victimized even before zoning is enacted. Such individuals have a moral right to demand compensation for every penny spent. Clearly, the interests of some members of “the public” are regarded as less important than the interests of others.
Support for zoning in Hobbs is not unanimous. There is not unanimous agreement on what constitutes “the public’s interest”.
Those who favor zoning differ from us in a very basic way. They believe that they have a right to impose their interests on the rest of the city. They believe that their interests on land use should overrule the views of the land’s owner. And they believe that those who do not comply should face fines and/ or imprisonment.They seek total and absolute control of our land, our homes, and all buildings. Mayor Newman and the Maddox Foundation would do well to read the 5th Amendment to the Constitution— “…nor shall private property be taken for public use without just compensation”.
In contrast, we recognize that Hobbsans do not agree on how a particular plot of land should be used. But we do not seek to impose our interests on the property’s owner. We believe that the owner should have control of his property, not politicians or the politically connected.
In most cities with zoning, zoning officials regularly hold hearings for citizens to express their views regarding land use. These hearings become a magnet for special interest groups eager to push their own particular cause. The result is a steady parade of noisy gangs, each declaring that it represents “the public interest” and demanding that its views be implemented. While each group differs on what they want, they agree that they should have a voice in how another’s property is used.
We reject this principle.
In a civilized society, individuals may disagree on many things. But they agree that individuals should be free to pursue their values without intervention from others, including the government. Protecting that freedom is truly in the public’s interest.
The barbarians are knocking at the gate. Don’t let them enter the city.