Mayor Meeker and the new “progressive” councilmen-elect suffered their first defeat last night. I don?t think Meeker expected the strong reaction to his technical change in the zoning ordinance. He proposed increasing side yard setbacks from 5 to 10 feet, the rear yard setback from 20 to 30 feet and decreasing the height limit from 40 to 32 feet. This change was designed to prevent homeowners from remodeling or tearing down an existing home and building a larger new home. The change was also to reward the “progressive” voters who supported his candidates in the October election.
He scheduled the public hearing last night when he expected most people to be busy with the Thanksgiving holiday. His plan backfired. The council chamber seats were filled and protesters were standing three deep in the back of the room. When Meeker asked if there were any citizens who supported the change, no one stepped forward. The crowd erupted in applause and cheers. Speaker after speaker, including Wake Commissioner Paul Coble, criticized the plan because it would destroy property values. Even those who support anti-tear down regulations criticized the plan. Here is the N&O coverage of the hearing.
Here is a portion of my remarks:
In other words, this ordinance will prevent people from living the lifestyle that they choose. This special interest, working through the city council, is using government to force people to live a lifestyle that it selects. This is a clear-cut case of the ?tyranny of the majority? but, ironically, it is being implemented not by a majority by a tiny minority. The two winning candidates in citywide elections received votes from only 5.5 percent of the registered votes. Hardly a majority.
Free societies usually punish, not reward, theft, but, in this case, we have an example of legalized theft. How would a free society solve this problem? First, those residents who want to maintain the so-called ?character of the community? could ask their neighbors to voluntarily restrict their redevelopment rights by signing restrictive covenants. If residents don?t agree, then they could buy the redevelopment rights from their neighbors. If residents still don?t agree, then their property rights should be respected. Stealing property through a zoning ordinance is not the solution, especially when the legitimacy of the council doing the stealing is based on about 5.5 percent of the voters.
