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

By Lesley Weidenbener

TheStatehouseFile.com

CORYDON, Ind. – Republican Gov. Mike Pence proposed a renewed emphasis on charter schools Tuesday, saying the state should supplement salaries for their teachers and make unused buildings available for the schools

Gov. Mike Pence waits for an introduction Tuesday before he spoke about his new education agenda. Photo by Jesse Wilson, TheStatehouseFile.com

He also proposed help for private charter school operators that have multiple locations in Indiana, saying they should be able to mingle funds from different schools so they can be run more like a public district.

Charter schools “have been an essential element in the spectrum of innovation,” Pence said. “And yet, even though they are public schools, they operate with several disadvantages compared to traditional public schools.”

Charters are public schools that operate outside the typical district configuration. They can be “chartered” by universities, a state board, the mayor of Indianapolis or even existing districts and are freed from most regulations placed on traditional public schools. They were originally designed to be small incubators of innovation but a few private operators have taken over a number of the schools and now want to operate them more cohesively.

Pence’s charter school proposals are part of a larger education agenda he outlined during a speech Tuesday at the state’s first capitol building in downtown Corydon. Standing in what had been the House of Representatives chamber, Pence renewed his call for a state-funded preschool voucher program for lower-income families.

The plan calls for vouchers for students whose families have incomes at or below 185 percent of the federal poverty level or about $43,567 for a family of four. The governor has not released a price tag for his plan and said he wants the General Assembly to design the program in 2014 and then consider its funding in 2015, when lawmakers will write the state’s next two-year budget.

Gov. Mike Pence talks to reporters Tuesday at the state’s first capitol building in Corydon following a speech about education.

On Monday, the governor ordered new cuts in university and agency funding to try to maintain the state’s $2 billion surplus in light of lower-than-projected tax receipts that have fallen below last year’s numbers. Still, Pence insisted Tuesday that the state’s economy is growing enough to help fund the preschool program.

“I simply believe that as our economy continues to grow, we’ll make those budgeting decisions,”
Pence said after his address. “But first, I think the priority here is on what we ought to do. I think the time has come for Indiana to expand access to pre-K education to disadvantaged kids.”

Senate Minority Leader Tim Lanane, D-Anderson, said Tuesday that the “governor’s agenda as it pertains to education is one that provides the need for both credit and concern.”

Lanane supports state-funded preschool but he said, “Simply tacking early childhood education onto an existing voucher program does a disservice to young Hoosiers and our state’s public schools. Any early education proposal must include local input.“

Senate Appropriations Chairman Luke Kenley, R-Noblesville, said he expects Pence’s preschool program to cost as much as $200 million annually. He called it a program that “merits discussion” but he said decisions about funding must be made in 2015.

“It’s really not, in my opinion, appropriate to consider these items outside the other budget priorities we have,” Kenley. He said the preschool vouchers and other Pence education ideas “should be forced to compete with every other budget priority the state has.”

Those other Pence priorities include a Choice for Teachers program that would give a stipend to traditional public school teachers who take positions at charter schools that have at least half their students on free- or reduced-lunch or schools that have a D or F in the state’s grading system.

Pence said charter teachers tend to make less than their public school counterparts – an average of $12,000 less.

“Low-performing schools need the help, and charters typically pay less and need the help, too,” Pence said. “Teachers that choose to make the move to a charter shouldn’t have to do so at the personal cost they do today.”

Pence also proposed:

-        A state council charged with repurposing vacant or underutilized school facilities to be used by charters or other public schools.

-        Lifting a cap on the number of dropout recovery schools for adults who have not completed high school.

-        A study that would determine the return on investment of career and technical programs in the state.

“Our job is not to improve education at the margins, but to continue to push for success for every Hoosier,” Pence said. “We need to do all we can to promote innovation and the best ideas. We need to do this in a fiscally responsible way, and we will. And we need to be accountable, driven by performance and outcomes – which we will do. We will do all of this tirelessly, with a boundless dedication to our kids.”

Lesley Weidenbener is the executive editor of TheStatehouseFile.com, a news website powered by Franklin College journalism students.