☆ Towards “less is more” city governance: MV Libertarian critiques zoning/housing law
Former Mountain View mayor and two-term councilmember John Inks sat down with Opp Now to discuss his view on local zoning and housing issues — including the dangers of historic home designation and authoritative approval processes. Inks also offers his “capsule version of Libertarianism,” and how it informs his policy approach. An Opp Now exclusive.
Opportunity Now: As a Libertarian, you posit that laws shouldn’t dictate how owners can use their own land, their own buildings, and their own money (so long as they are not harming others).
Talk to us about how such laws play out, and why they’re onerous for locals.
John Inks: One example of over-restrictive, though on the surface innocuous, policy is historic designations for homes. This doesn’t exist now but has in the past.
In Mountain View, there are many beautiful historic properties, such as the Spangler funeral homes (a noteworthy mortuary). Now, the last thing the owner Spangler will do is change the architecture of his building. At the same time, the last thing he wants is an ordinance dictating that he can’t change anything.
Such an ordinance is about to be considered again in Mountain View, and unfortunately, the council is mostly oriented towards stricter government control.
ON: Besides laws (such as historic designations for homes), are there ever speed bumps in local approval processes?
JI: Yes. When you go to Community Development at City Hall or Public Works — I know the director of each — they seem to find ways to say “no” a lot more than “yes.”
For instance, local Mountain View businesses erected tents to provide shade and comfort for customers at a popular venue. One day, the tents simply disappeared because the city planner didn’t think they were appropriate for the downtown area. As a consequence, those businesses went away. Their clientele dried up with the tents gone. This is just one example of an ordinance that wasn’t really an ordinance, just policy that constrained the decisions of local businessowners.
Also, in local government, what happens a lot is a bureaucrat says, “The council wants this” or “I heard this from council,” but it may just be hearsay. These messages are often well intended but may not even be authorized. They’re very hard to stop, especially if coming from a Community Development director, for instance.
The CEO of the Chamber of Commerce had basically this same experience, trying to get movement out of City Hall, but there were consistently roadblocks in Community Development and at Public Works.
Again, these are fine people. However, municipal bureaucrats too often subordinate the wants of businesses, property owners, and retail tenants.
ON: I’m hearing that these departments can hinder projects’ progress by flat-out denying the actions of owners or making suggestions antithetical to what owners, clients, and the community want.
On the flipside, what do Community Development and Public Works departments do effectively, in your experience?
JI: To be fair, one thing the city of Mountain View does well — and this is probably also the case for San Jose — is routine permit actions. The same departments I’m talking about in Mountain View are very, very good at processing an incredible volume of permits. They handle and issue permits for everything from building to local development, so they have to be efficient.
Overall, I want to be balanced in my critique of these departments and recognize, too, what they’re doing effectively. In some of these development projects, they just get stuck.
ON: What is your ultimate approach to these issues, considering that you advocate for scaled-back regulations and more flexible governance?
JI: My approach to policy and governance is always “less is more.” This relates to, and is influenced by, my perspective as a Libertarian.
If I had to distill Libertarianism into a quote, I’d cite a popular bumper sticker quote: “Don’t hurt people or take their stuff.” The corollary I have to that is slightly broader: “Don’t hurt or bother people, and don’t take or mess with their stuff.” There’s a lot of things that criminals, including in some cases the government, don’t necessarily take or hurt but bother by messing with your stuff without completely stealing it, or dictating what you can and can’t do with it. One example is excessive local regulations on land use; the government isn’t taking your property but is messing with it. That is my capsule version of Libertarianism.
Follow Opportunity Now on Twitter @svopportunity
This article is part of an exclusive Opp Now series. Local Libertarian leaders share their perspectives on SCC governance:
Former Libertarian Party CA state chair and current Silicon Valley Taxpayers Association president Mark Hinkle discusses advantages of local drug liberalization.
SCC Libertarian Party Campaigns Committee chair Brian Holtz makes his case against land use restrictions.
Former Mountain View councilmember/mayor John Inks critiques local zoning/housing law.
John Inks analyzes local governments’ plans for construction and development projects.
Brian Holtz explains how a completely community-run K-12 education system might operate.
Image by Wikimedia Commons