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.