Let’s be clear. This isn’t about preventing a family from converting their garage into a studio apartment for Granny so she doesn’t have to spend the rest of her life in assisted living or any other commonly used argument to gaslight people sounding the alarm on potential loss of local control. A few other scenarios often used are the soldier returning from active duty and living in the attic or basement until civilian employment is found or the young happy couple living in the attic or basement while saving for a down payment. Most of us know families with those situations and support their pursuits of happiness.
Most of us know of people dealing with tyrants in their zoning or planning boards in their communities. The procedure for removing them is the same one used for such situations involving their school boards.
Most of us support property rights until the property rights of someone else become THEIR potential nuisance. What about the property rights of the asphalt plant or the landfill operators? No, I wouldn’t want either one of those businesses as my nearby neighbors, but I chose those examples because one is rural and one is urban. How many of you don’t want a new landfill or asphalt plant in YOUR zip code, even if the applicants followed procedure every step of the way? All these housing cultists are crying “local control” while dismissing genuine concern about unintended consequences.
Ladies and gentlemen, this housing bill madness is a Trojan horse, and we’re all familiar with the “foot in the door” technique. Maybe you’re ok with a 7-11 or 24-hour CVS moving into the lot next door, or even welcome the conveniences that come with that, but ask yourself, “What presses YOUR buttons?” Heavy traffic on your street? Excessive numbers of parallel-parked cars? More pedestrians J-walking? What are the consequences of a bigger demand on the water and sewer infrastructure? Overcrowded schools? More 911 calls and responses in YOUR neighborhood? Are your favorite small businesses closing and being replaced with social service agency branch offices and check-cashing centers? More crime in your zip code? Pick your poison, but there’s one or more unintended consequences that you’re secretly thinking, “What are the odds of ___ coming to MY neighborhood?”
Whether you want to acknowledge it or not, removing local control might win a battle here and there, but it’s a recipe for losing the war. The war can be called whatever name you prefer. War on your property value. War on rural character. War on your community’s way of life. The AFP & Co fueled war on local control has a lot of influential people already high on their Kool-Aid. This intoxication has attracted likable, respectable, and once reasonable people who are very bent on this issue.
Many of them resist or outright reject polite overtures to engage in polite discourse. I find this akin to the diehard unconditional FSA zealots ignoring Doris and/or the Underwoods when they sound the alarm of unintended consequences(government infiltration and long-term budget/spending impacts). I see many of these housing zealots as trained canvassers who blindly recite scripted talking points to each talking point of the opposition. It’s kind of like when you’re a kid and your parents are the obstacle, or you’re an employee and your boss is the obstacle. You want what you want, no matter what. I compare this housing madness to Hillary’s famous words “by any means necessary.”
One moment, some of us were preaching secession or exploring the idea of it. One of the merits of that idea was the locus of government control being closer to home. Now, some of those same people are pushing for the opposite because they’re high on housing madness Kool-Aid. To them, I say “not so fast” and ask what unintended consequences press THEIR buttons.
