On April 7th, the Bourbon County Commissioners discussed zoning. Commissioner Beerbower read some prepared remarks and said, “Let me reiterate, it is not a matter of if we will zone. It is a matter of what zoning will look like.” (source) He further addressed people who don’t want zoning in the county, saying,  “Those that hold on to the outdated ideology that zoning somehow robs their freedom and right to do whatever on their land are shortsighted.” (source)

I can definitely see some reasons zoning might be valuable as well as some reasons it might not. But let’s take an imaginary person named Fred who fits Commissioner Beerbower’s description. Fred believes that if zoning is implemented, it will place some type of limits on what he can do with his land. Commissioner Beerbower calls Fred’s belief an “outdated ideology.” But is it? If we were to enumerate all the things Fred might possibly do with his land without zoning, and then do the same thing with everything he might do with his land after zoning, are those two lists the same? If they are, then zoning does nothing.

If they aren’t the same, then zoning does remove some of the freedoms of what he can do to his land versus what he could do with it before. Now, that might not matter to Fred. If Fred wants to put a shooting range on his property, he’d need to get permission from the county commissioners. If Fred’s neighbors decide they want to prevent Fred from doing this, it isn’t a matter of working with their neighbor to create a compromise. They can now go to the commissioners and try to convince them to stop Fred. Now, whether you see that is a good or bad thing probably depends on whether you are Fred or the neighbor trying to determine what Fred is allowed to do.

(Note: The shooting range example comes from Mr. Eden’s comment about a conversation with Commissioner Beerbower.)

Commissioner Beerbower may call Fred’s view “outdated ideology,” but there are definitely some things that Fred can do without zoning that he cannot do with zoning. That’s kind of the point of zoning.

Now try to see Beerbower’s statement about zoning not taking away anyone’s freedom from his point of view. He might think he would never deny Fred’s request and it is just a matter of making sure it is safe. So from that perspective, Fred can still do what he wants with his land, it is just a matter of the commissioners making sure he does it in a way that makes his neighbors happy. So maybe the neighbors say they would be fine with the shooting range as long as it had a berm of a particular height. Fred may say, “Sure, we were going to do 6 feet, but if you feel more comfortable with 7, I can do that.” Everyone works together. Everyone is happy.
But what if everyone isn’t going to be happy? Maybe what would make Fred’s neighbors happy isn’t something Fred wants or can do. Well then it becomes a matter for the commissioners to tell Fred what he can or can’t do.

This isn’t necessarily good or bad, but it introduces a step in the way that Fred uses his land that wasn’t there before. Without zoning, Fred is the one who decides whether he wants to put in a shooting range. Zoning would give the commissioners the authority to say yes, no, or ask for changes.

When it comes to me personally, Commissioner Beerbower is right that zoning isn’t going to “rob [my] freedom and right to do whatever on [my] land.” But that is because I have no intention of doing anything on my property that anyone is going to want to control with zoning. Other people who actually make a living off their land are much more likely to want to do something with their land that would require commissioner approval. 

Zoning requires you to take on the burden of getting permission for things that are otherwise legal uses of your property, but it also gives you a greater say in what your neighbor is allowed to do with their property. If you think the commissioners are going to endorse the plans you want on your land, but oppose the ones you don’t want on your neighbor’s, then maybe you’ll retain your “freedom and right to do whatever on your land” for anything you might want to do and the extra step of getting permission will be just a formality. Once again, this isn’t necessarily good or bad, it is just a tradeoff.

It makes perfect sense why some people might support making this tradeoff and some people might be against it. It isn’t an irrational position to think that the current laws are sufficient, nor is it an irrational position for someone to be willing to take on more oversight in what they are allowed to do if it means they can have a greater voice in what their neighbor is allowed to do.

A lot of how people weigh the tradeoffs has to do with core principles, what someone thinks they might want to do with their property in the future, and how much they trust current and future commissioners. Since those three things vary wildly between individuals, we should expect to see people on both sides of the fence when it comes to zoning. We’ll look at some of those issues in the future, but if someone has a position different than yours, it might not be because of an “outdated ideology” and being “short-sighted.”

Mark Shead

Note: FortScott.biz publishes opinion pieces with a variety of perspectives. If you would like to share your opinion, please send a letter to [email protected].