The Inherent Conflict in Zoning

The following article was published in the March 2010 issue of The North Country Bulletin in Chama, New Mexico.

$ $ $

Imagine that your boss tells you that he needs a report from you for a meeting that morning. An hour later he tells you that he needs you to meet with a client in 30 minutes. You cannot satisfy these conflicting demands. To meet one directive means ignoring the other, and no matter which you do, you are likely to incur the wrath of your boss.

We don’t need to imagine such a scenario. It is occurring today, right here in Chama. Except it isn’t your boss who is issuing these conflicting directives—it is the Planning and Zoning Commission. And it isn’t your job that is at risk—it is your property and your money.

Consider for example, Section 1-5.3 of the Chama Zoning Ordinance, which states:

It is recognized that not all policies and or will be given effect in a given situation and that choices between policies shall be made by officials and employees of the Village in accordance with this Code, particularly when implementation of one or more policies will be inconsistent with another policy or policies.

In other words, the Ordinance itself acknowledges that it is inconsistent, that the dictates it imposes upon citizens are in conflict with one another.

We must ask ourselves why such conflicts exist. We must ask ourselves why Village officials are vested with such discretionary powers. If zoning officials are so wise that they should be vested with the power to dictate all land-use in Chama, why are they not wise enough to avoid conflicting policies?

The truth is, they aren’t that wise. Nor do they gain wisdom by sitting on the zoning board. All they gain is power—the power to dictate how you may or may not use your property.

One of the stated purposes of the zoning ordinance is “to promote the health, safety, and general welfare of the community” (Section 1-5.1A). But again, nowhere in the ordinance is “general welfare” defined. Both the ends and the means are left to the discretion of zoning officials. And when the alleged “welfare of the community” conflicts with your welfare, you are forced to put aside your own “selfish” interests.

Indeed, the very nature of zoning pits the interests of individuals against those of the “community”. Because a community consists of individuals, this ultimately means that the interests of some individuals are to take precedence over the interests of other individuals. Which means, some individuals may impose their views, values, and interests on their neighbors.

Anything and everything can be justified in the name of the alleged “community welfare”. A non-conforming use can be declared vital to the “community welfare” or contrary to it. A proposal to erect a business sign can be declared a component of economic growth, or it can be rejected as a threat to the goals of the Village. A landscaping plan might be deemed appropriate, or it could be declared “unappealing”. The criteria for making such judgments is left entirely in the hands of the zoning commission.

The solution to such unbridled power is not “better” people on the commission or more public input. The solution is to recognize and protect property rights. The solution is to abolish zoning.