Abolishing the Area Plan Commission: Why a Major Change is Both Doable and Necessary
By: Brad Linzy
As the debate has raged locally over the Area Plan Commission (APC) and its apparent use of fines as a club for unequal enforcement, one question has loomed: do we actually need an APC or any of the regulations it enforces in the first place?
Let’s look at what the APC is and what it does. The APC consists of 13 appointed board members and professional and support staff. The politically appointed board meets once a month and makes decisions on zoning for the city and county. The APC is responsible for long range planning, including updating the City/County Comprehensive Plan and its implementation. They rule on petitions for variance in the zoning restrictions, for which anyone can apply. The APC is also tasked with issuing building permits, inspection, and enforcement of zoning ordinance. [1]
At first glance, this indeed seems like a well-intended, indispensable agency – one that eliminates confusion, nuisance, and danger in our community, one without which the invisible hand of self-interest would run amok, bringing ruin and blight to our well-partitioned patchwork of farms, commercial buildings, and residences.
Nothing could be further from the truth. The “plan” this agency is supposed to administer is seemingly non-existent, blight is already an issue with an estimated 10,000 blighted buildings and homes in Evansville, and the enforcement arm of the agency is using its standing, many would say, to attack political enemies. Ask Amy Word, Kunkel Group, or the owner of the Riverhouse whether they believe the APC is politicized or “more equal” to some than others.
Indeed, it would seem to the casual observer that all the APC really does is set up rules, fiddle with those rules anytime someone with enough time, money, and clout comes along wanting a variance, and levies fines against anyone who steps out of line or did not first beg for permission to do what they’d like to do on their own property.
Perhaps, the most blatant cynicism of all comes in the form of annual fees levied from businesses great and small for the use of signage. If the signage rules are really set up with safety and esthetics in mind, why does this agency not simply charge one fee, approve a given sign, and let that be it? What is the justification for the perennial indulgences scheme of “pay your annual tribute…or else” even though its the same sized sign in the same location? I submit to you, dear reader, the only justification for this is in securing the jobs of the people who work at the APC – who, though doubtlessly well-intentioned, are nonetheless extraneous to the growth and well-being of Evansville – and ensuring the city continues to perpetuate its status as the Great and Powerful Oz to whom everyone must pay their pound of flesh in tribute. It’s all about control – the kind of control that allows the well-connected among us a means of attacking political rivals and punishing enemies. It offers a mechanism by which some “preferred” businesses can place undue and unfair burdens on competing businesses, e.g. the casino exception to the smoking ban. All you need is a big enough pocket book and enough insider track to navigate the regulatory morass.
I realize this viewpoint of total abolition of the APC is not the majority view. In a recent CCO poll, the idea of APC abolition only garnered about 17% support. I know many readers at this point will be dismissing this idea as an unworkable pipe dream. In response to this, I’d like to draw your attention to the city of Houston, Texas.
Houston is a bustling, growing metropolis, one of the largest and richest in the country, yet it boasts one important difference between it and most other cities – the near total absence of zoning laws and a zoning authority.
The following is from an article in the second-quarter edition of Investment Research Quarterly, a publication of CB Richard Ellis Investors LLC.:
“What is unique about Houston is that the separation of land uses is impelled by economic forces rather than mandatory zoning. While it is theoretically possible for a petrochemical refinery to locate next to a housing development, it is unlikely that profit-maximizing real-estate developers will allow this to happen. Developers employ widespread private covenants and deed restrictions, which serve a comparable role as zoning. These privately prescribed land use controls are effective because they have a legal precedence and local government has chosen to assist in enforcing them.”
[2]
Many economists and think tanks have studied the issues of restrictive planning and found that, in general, places with the strictest land use lag far behind in attracting new people and new capital. Companies looking to locate in areas with highly restrictive planning are finding there are not enough medium or low-skilled laborers to suit their workforce needs simply because these laborers cannot afford to live in these highly controlled and gentrified areas. Hurdles to success, such as attaining homeownership, are larger where land use is most restrictive. In Portland, Oregon, for example, restrictive land use and a draconian attitude toward new home building and city expansion has caused housing prices to balloon prohibitively to all but the upper crust and the investment class. Furthermore, these studies have found that inequality in wages countrywide has risen since 1980 as migration to wealthier parts of the country are impeded. [3]
To be clear, I am not against all restrictions on land use. I believe laws restricting certain forms of pollution like light, noise, air, and water are desirable, even necessary in some cases. I also agree that any situation, such as a misplaced sign, which poses a visibility danger should have some mechanism through which the situation can be addressed. Are there many ordinances that should be completely repealed? Absolutely. But what I am suggesting is a complete rethink on the manner in which we administer code changes and enforcement.
I propose a complete and immediate abolition of the APC, a full legislative review of all zoning restrictions with a one year period, the creation of an arbitration panel for solving disputes and helping neighborhood organizations and private property owners arrive at mutually beneficial agreements, an encouragement for developers and neighborhoods to begin the process of shifting over to a system of covenants for land use where zoning restrictions would henceforth be built into land titles and major issues exceeding the ability of the arbitration panel to solve would be litigated in our existing civil court system where decisions would be made based on the legal ordinances left in place after the legislative review.
The scheme of perennial indulgences, politically motivated attacks, unequal enforcement, unfair bias against small businesses, archaic regulations, and the practice of asking for approval for any and every property improvement, however small, would be things of the past. Our legislative body, the County Council, would be directly responsible for all future changes to the code and therefore directly accountable to voters for any unpopular changes. This is certainly preferable to what we have now – a politically appointed, politically motivated board of bureaucrats who owe their existence to the fines and indulgences they can manage to extricate from the residents and business owners of the community.
1. http://www.evansvilleapc.com/
2. http://www.businessweek.com/the_thread/hotproperty/archives/2007/10/how_houston_gets_along_without_zoning.html
3. http://www.economist.com/news/united-states/21582315-are-oregons-strict-planning-rules-stifling-growth-biking-and-hiking-no-parking
