He just wanted to park his truck next to his house.
The relevant part from Chapter 3 of "The Politically Incorrect Guide to Socialism" (can’t give you a page, as a "page" really doesn’t work on "Kindle on iPad"):
The central planners, of course, have no incentive to admit that their powers to act rationally are limited. When THE PLAN fails – as the THE PLAN ultimately must fail, being based on faulty and inadequate information – the planners invariably attempt to force society to conform to their plan, rather than reform their plan to conform to society. In truth, they cannot reform their plans to conform to society’s actual needs, because they do not know what those needs are and have no way of finding out.
The book is actually talking about how socialism has to fail – central planners who try to plan an entire economy can never succeed; there are just too many actors (too many variations of producers, consumers, products, needs, and wants) to legitimately decide how much and where stuff should be and at what price. Only the free marketplace, based on price with millions (billions) of people actively participating in that market can correctly identify imbalances in that marketplace and automatically (given some amount of time) correct itself.
OK, it’s a dump truck. A big dump truck. But all he wants to do is park it. Empty. Next to his house. It’s color even matches the house (hard to see, though, as it gets parked way back). He actually did that, for a year and a half with no complaints from his neighbors.
Another way that central planner types can work their machinations is in zoning – the system by which land owners are permitted to use their private property. Think of it as "the land and building economy"; what can be done where? Can you live there? Can you have a business there? What kinds of businesses? Type of home? Got a few extra cars? People in and out visiting? What if they are customers, or clients? Sorry, your house can only be so tall and only so close to your neighbor. Or to the wetlands. Sorry, what you want to do with land you have paid for can’t be done there….
Then he had to reregister it. Brand new truck. Paperwork. Uh-Oh.
Absolutely, zoning is regulating an economy of space…
…(vs an economy of product / services and money). It has all the markings of a central authority (e.g., the paid professional planner, the Planning Board, the Zoning Board, et al) that decide what is allowed to be done where. Sure, some are elected, but essentially, like any other managed economy, they are making decisions that are trying to fit all people….THE PLAN.
Town Clerk sent him to the Planning Director. Staff said "more paperwork: home office time! And a meeting!"
When situations come up that THE PLAN cannot cope with, well, that’s a problem.
And then the Letter arrived: a daily fine of $280 / day for not being in compliance with Zone Plan.
No, THE PLAN is not the problem, the situation is. At least, that’s what I saw last night. Not allowed on one side of the street but perfectly allowable on the other side of the same street. I understand that zoning is used to "keep order’ within a small segment of society.
Time for the meeting – can he get a variance from the Plan? Will he be allowed to park his truck next to his house? His property on his property?
THE PLAN – lock it down and keep it locked. After all, we have to have order – because planners have done the work and they are the ones that know better what is best for the town. Want a variance from THE PLAN? Fulfill the five criteria that excuses you from THE PLAN – talk to us why we should let you use your property that is not according to our PLAN for your property.
He doesn’t load anything into it when it is parked next to his house (except for himself). He doesn’t unload anything from the truck (except himself) when he returns. Nearest neighbor is at the other end of 350′ of woods. None of the neighbors have cared for a year and a half (when he moved in). He bought the house because it had the second driveway. Now he can’t use it?
For the committee, the item is THE PLAN and how the use of his land is to be at odds with THE PLAN. He keeps telling the committee that all he wants to do is park his truck, that keeping it elsewhere would be an economic hardship, he keeps being told "it has to be the property that has to have the hardship – the Zoning Plan doesn’t account for the economic hardship of a guy just trying to put food on the table.
To their credit, the committee was trying hard to help the guy out, discussing and arguing about nuances and definitions as written, how they could be interpreted, what the ordinance said, how they could be read, and what kind of viewpoint could be used to help him out.
*******
When it was all said and done, he can park his truck next to his house.
They tortured themselves in trying to bend his need against THE PLAN. As Kevin wrote – they did as Kevin Williamson said: "attempt to force society to conform to their plan, rather than reform their plan to conform to society. " The good news is that they did find that because of his need, they put together a set of assumptions that logically led to a finding that he didn’t have to appear before them – after discussing the case for an hour and a half (and $140 in fees).
The thrust of GraniteGrok the last year or so has been around the topic of individual Liberty and Freedom in a scenario of limited government. They wanted an environment where each person could be the best they could be without being shackled by government. Yet, in this one case, a person’s livelihood was at risk for being outside THE PLAN’s planned outcome for the Town and the people who live in it. Over the last few years, the zoning changes have come fast and furious, to the point where I have begun to think "too much – who really owns the home"?
Socialism is when the State, with its central planning, owns and directs the means of production. Well, if you don’t own it but can control those means of production to the point where it is all but ownership, what is the difference? The same point is here – if one is enjoined from enjoying their own property because of someone’s notion of how you should (or not) use that property has been put into the force of law, how is that different?
