In summary, Amendment 4 reads as follows:
“Before a local government may adopt a new comprehensive land use plan, or amend a comprehensive land use plan, the proposed plan or amendment shall be subject to vote of the electors of the local government by referendum.”
In essence, this amendment requires local governments to consult the electorate before making changes to, or replacing, existing planning and zoning laws. So what could possibly be wrong with that? On the surface, this amendment puts a wedge between politicians and developers, making it more difficult to broker backroom deals and peddle influence for campaign contributions. “The electors” will have the final say on how land is parceled out or earmarked. Instead of power accumulating to government, it would rest with the people, for a refreshing change.
From a libertarian perspective, zoning and planning laws, much like their dark cousin, property taxes, are founded in a false premise. Zoning and planning laws assume the authority to dictate how private property may be used or transferred, eminent domain being the most egregious violation of property rights exercised under these laws. With the imposition of property taxes, the basic right of title to property is made dependent on an individual’s ability to pay government for the ‘privilege’ of continued ownership. Try ignoring a bill for property taxes and see what happens.
Amendment 4 has its detractors and its proponents, none have ventured to point out that democracy is nothing more than 2 wolves and a sheep deciding what’s for dinner. Democratizing a slice of the legislation process, as this amendment does, simply empowers a majority of people (instead of government officials) to decide how the property and possessions of the minority shall be used or divided.
If passed (and it likely will), this amendment will certainly empower the people at the expense of government influence and corruption, but at what price? Does a group of people have any more authority over the property of others than an individual? What would my neighbor say if I were to begin dictating to him how to arrange the lawn chairs in his back yard? What if there were several of us? Would our number somehow give us authorities over our neighbors that we do not enjoy as individuals?
Government by many is little different than government by a few. Our constitutions (Federal and State) guarantee us a republican form of government, not a democracy; the rule of law over the rule of the mob. If it is illegal or immoral for an individual, then it should be equally illegal or immoral for any group, regardless of size or ‘democratic consensus’. Neither constitution has any mention of the word ‘democracy’ – anywhere.
If this law passes, and you start to see yourself as someone of some importance, try ordering someone else’s dog around before trying to dictate terms of ownership to others. It's immoral, and if it's not illegal, it should be.
