I meant to post this last week, but after I had it 75% written and then lost it all I said to hell with it and decided to do it later. So here it is.
A couple weeks ago now I spoke at the Queen Anne’s County Commissioners Meeting. My purpose in speaking was to respond to an advisory opinion issued by the county Ethics Commission against my father (he spoke as well, in fact my comments follow and build off of his).
To offer a little bit of context, my father is a real estate broker and occasional small-scale developer. Queen Anne’s County unfortunately happens to be in the grip of a fervent, one might even say rabid, anti-growth movement. Even though the county is still something like 80% open land and in no danger of being over-developed (For the record, nowhere in QAC is over-developed or anywhere near it. I went to school in north New Jersey so I know what I’m talking about) the anti-growthers, who should rightfully be recognized not as anti-growth but as anti-freedom, are insistent upon stopping any and all development in county. As a result, since my father is a proponent of a reasonable growth policy, they have been fervently against his appointment to the county Planning Commission.
Their most recent move was to get Commissioner Fordonski to file an eleventh hour request for an advisory opinion as to whether my father or the one other person not opposed to growth would have a Conflict of Interest preventing them from serving. The Ethics Commission, in a clearly incorrect decision, held that yes, it was a Conflict of Interest (I’ll post more on this later most likely), hence the comments by my father and I.
You can watch them here. Once you click the link, choose Commissioners Meetings, then Commissioners Meeting 1/26/10 Part 1 of 2. My father’s comments begin at about 00:53:33 (be sure to watch his comments and then the back and forth afterwards). After that I speak at 01:08:15.
Follow on Twitter
Add on Facebook
E-mail Me
Quite frankly, I don’t believe that developers/real estate professionals should be appointed to the planning board. Every decision the board makes affects your fathers livelihood.
Well to begin with, that is simply false. With the exception of approval for major subdivisions and site plans, the Planning Commission only has the ability to offer recommendations. The only people with any true decision-making power when it comes to land policy are the Planning Director and the County Commissioners.
But even if that weren’t true, by your standard no one should be allowed to serve on the board, at least no one who has anything to do with the county.
Land use policy decisions impact every sector of the economy by limiting who is and is not allowed to participate in the local economy. For example, if the Planning Commission decides to not allow any more fast food facilities to be built it benefits the livelihoods of the owners and employees of the existing fast food facilities as they are now shielded from competition. The same holds true for every other business.
It’s not even just business. A home is the single most valuable asset most people are likely to own. The degree to which land use policies and zoning ordinances expand or limit the supply of new homes can have a significant impact on the value of that asset. Increases in supply can be detrimental to current home owners, but make it easier for renters and other first-time buyers to become home-owners. Inversely, decreases in the supply benefit current owners by increasing their homes’ value, but make home ownership much less attainable for those who do not yet own.
And when you factor in how commonly people borrow against their home equity to finance various ventures – according to economist Hernando de Soto “the single most important source of funds for new businesses in the United States is a mortgage on the entrepreneur’s house” – it is impossible to suggest that the work of the Planning Commission wouldn’t impact most everyone’s livelihood.
And that is why it is not unethical for a developer or a real estate professional to serve on the Planning Commission (ignoring for the moment the fact that the Planning Commission has virtually zero decision making power). It isn’t simply enough that decisions made might impact a person’s livelihood. They have to impact their livelihood in a way that is discernible from the general public. When everyone has a financial stake in the land use policies of an area no one is ethically compromised simply by serving on the Commission.
Now if a decision was being made that specifically concerned a situation they held a financial stake in, that would be a different matter. But that is resolved by recusal on that particular issue, not by a full-out ban on their serving on the Commission.
[...] However, my triumph with my group shouldn’t be read into too much. Compared to the other groups mine was probably the most market friendly; besides me there were two farmers, a MACO rep, and someone involved in construction/development vs a carpet-bagger from PA (incidentally, I think the forum proved well my theory that people who move to the area are far more likely to be supportive of centralized planning of land use policy). The table next to mine also had some good market-friendly things to say, but it also had Andrew Langer, president of the Institute for Liberty; David Dunmyer, who is apparently pretty growth-friendly; Del. Dick Sossi, also fairly friendly to growth; and my father, Barry Waterman. [...]