As published on the website for the Arlington Sun Gazette:
Editor: The recent debates about the Views at Clarendon project in Arlington and legislation in the General Assembly have convinced me of something I have always feared: People only want a powerful government when it is on their side.
I imagine that much praise for the Arlington County government could be heard when they used their power to create zoning laws that pleased the neighbors. Now, we see great uproar as they contemplate using that same power against the neighbors.
The Views at Clarendon project isn't about affordable housing, churches, zoning, or any of the other superficial things being debated. It is about government power. Giving government the power to restrict how property is used may seem beneficial to some, at some point in time, but, in the end, it seems to always come back to hurt one or both parties involved.
Power is only as good as the people who hold it, and in a democracy those people change quite often.
The best solution is to give up as little power as possible, and quit looking to government to solve our problems.
We need to start giving serious consideration to all proposals that take power out of the hands of the people and put it into a board, council, legislature or Congress.
Showing posts with label Views at Clarendon. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Views at Clarendon. Show all posts
Monday, February 26, 2007
Sunday, February 25, 2007
Views at Clarendon
Yes, I did it. I watched the entire Arlington County Board meeting regarding the Views at Clarendon project. In fact, the meeting provided much of the inspiration I needed to finally start this blog. Why, you ask? Because I think both parties got it wrong!
The neighbors thought they had zoning rights. Here's something to remember: when government gives you something, it's not a right. Rights are something that you had without a government. You were given zoning privileges, and as with any privilege, it can be taken away. As you are learning now, the hand that feeds you can also slap you in the face.
The church, in what I consider to be a slightly lesser offense, seeks to use public money for its ministry. As a libertarian, I disdain the idea of public funds being used for affordable housing. As we saw at the meeting, many people oppose affordable housing when it "blocks my child's view of the sunlight." With such opposition, can it be right to use taxpayer dollars for such project? However, since the church is seeking a loan, not a grant, and that loan would be available to non-religious groups, I feel it would have been inappropriate to discriminate against the church by denying funds because they are faith-based. I wish they weren't seeking the money, but since they are, they should get it just like anyone else would.
Here's my take. The neighbors should have never depended on the government's zoning "power" to protect them. Furthermore, no one should try to use the law to regulate what someone else does on their own property. Radical? Maybe, but completely American. On the other hand, the church should have sought a ministry that did not depend on taxpayer dollars.
In the end, I applaud the County Board's decision, but barely.
In a (my) perfect world, the church would have a privately funded ministry in a building as big as they can afford to build. But no, we all want government in our back pocket, poised to bite us in a very uncomfortable place.
The neighbors thought they had zoning rights. Here's something to remember: when government gives you something, it's not a right. Rights are something that you had without a government. You were given zoning privileges, and as with any privilege, it can be taken away. As you are learning now, the hand that feeds you can also slap you in the face.
The church, in what I consider to be a slightly lesser offense, seeks to use public money for its ministry. As a libertarian, I disdain the idea of public funds being used for affordable housing. As we saw at the meeting, many people oppose affordable housing when it "blocks my child's view of the sunlight." With such opposition, can it be right to use taxpayer dollars for such project? However, since the church is seeking a loan, not a grant, and that loan would be available to non-religious groups, I feel it would have been inappropriate to discriminate against the church by denying funds because they are faith-based. I wish they weren't seeking the money, but since they are, they should get it just like anyone else would.
Here's my take. The neighbors should have never depended on the government's zoning "power" to protect them. Furthermore, no one should try to use the law to regulate what someone else does on their own property. Radical? Maybe, but completely American. On the other hand, the church should have sought a ministry that did not depend on taxpayer dollars.
In the end, I applaud the County Board's decision, but barely.
In a (my) perfect world, the church would have a privately funded ministry in a building as big as they can afford to build. But no, we all want government in our back pocket, poised to bite us in a very uncomfortable place.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
