Living in your local feudal serfdom

In "Insanity... one brain cell at a time" I described how city governments attempt to control almost everything that happens within their boundaries, all in the name of improvement. In the process, they cause great complication, driving up the cost of doing almost anything within their borders. In so doing, they are particularly damaging to the poorer members of our society. Low-cost housing, although technically possible, becomes impossible because of restrictive building codes and ordinances. The same codes and ordinances, plus regulations, drive up the minimum cost of businesses, which prevents the relatively poor from turning their effort and creativity into entreprenuerism.

We could argue about what the reasonable functions of a city government should be. As a libertarian, I can make a good case that there may be NO functions that couldn't be done better privately than by government, but I want to examine one of the more recent aspects cities have piled on top of all the other damage they do... "improving" the city... not the city government functions, but virtually everything privately owned within the city.

To demonstrate how vague and all-emcompassing this self-appointed mandate has become, I pulled just two goals from a real city charter. I suspect you can find something similar in most charters.

Improve / Upgrade Housing Stock.
Enhance and Reposition Commercial Development.

Let's remind ourselves that "housing stock" means our PRIVATE homes, and "commercial development" means all the PRIVATE businesses in the city. None of those houses or businesses are owned by the city, and the city contributes nothing to their construction or maintenance. Nevertheless, the city goals clearly consider our houses and businesses to be THEIR property to control, relocate... and even remove... at their whim.

It seems obvious that citizens are considered mere pawns on the chessboard that is the city. In the same manner, our children are often referred to by public schools as "resources", again implying that they are the property of the city.

This attitude is relatively recent, and naturally grew into the eminent domain abuse problem faced by citizens all over the nation. Once the city began to think of citizens and property as theirs to be manipulated, personal rights became secondary.

How did we get to this point?
How did city government become so overblown that this attitude became widespread?

I can answer in broad terms, such as "power corrupts"... put normal citizens in elected office and it will eventually go to their heads, making them feel that "managing" the city, as a whole, is their right... even their duty. They feel as if they must do something important, and they've been taught (in government schools) that all good things come from government, and that without tight government, citizens would wreak all sorts of havoc. They can't let people build just any sort of crazy house, so they write code to make construction standardized, and safe, and tidy, and very expensive. They can't let people start goofy businesses, so they lay out ordinances to insure that all stores meet minimum standards. In the process, they forget that some of our largest corporations started in someones garage.

Elected officials have plenty of people pushing them in that destructive direction. Those who make construction materials, and labor unions, push the implementation and expansion of building codes. Existing businesses push for ordinances and licensing that makes it harder for competitors to enter the city. City employees, seeking job security, naturally push for expansion and change, so they don't run out of work.

As the poor are squeezed financially, some will resort to crime, requiring more police. Increasing city regulations and ordinances means greater need for enforcement. A sick sort of competition also occurs between cities... who has the best shopping areas... who has the nicest housing developments, the best park system, etc., leading officials to offer lucrative deals to developers for showcase developments.

All of these factors lead elected officials down the path of "improving" the city... at the expense of their own citizens... the very people they are supposed to be serving, until it has reached the point where citizens are insignificant pawns to be shuffled about and pushed around to best serve the city. City government, put in place to handle a few tasks in service of the citizens, has become another out-of-control level of government that treats the people like serfs.

Who is to blame? The ugly truth is that we, as citizens, are to blame. We have the mistaken notion that we can simply turn power over to someone else and expect them not to abuse it. We have come to believe that government doesn't even need much oversight... that our elected officials will just "do what is right". That is completely naive. We ignore city government until it does something that affects us personally, and even then, we've come to believe that "you can't fight city hall", so we often just take what comes and live with it.

Can you name the mayor of your city?
Can you name the council member who represents your district?
Do you have any idea how much your city government is costing you in taxes?
Have you ever been to a council meeting in your city?

Very few of us can answer more than one of those questions in the affirmative... and that is why city government is out of control. Elected officials are seldom confronted by anyone except those trying to gain some favor. Very few citizens attend council meetings, so the natural result is that elected officials have to guess about what to do. They're not evil people (most of them), but they're caught up in a naturally corrupting system (government) that doesn't work well with a LOT of citizen oversight, and is disastrous with the amount of attention we give to city government.

While many of us are informed and opinionated about federal and even state government issues, we continue to ignore local governments, which have become bloated, intrusive and oppressive through our neglect.

How bloated? With a bit of effort, you can find your city's annual budget and population. Divide the budget amount by the population to get an idea how much you're paying for what they do. Here are a few examples from the Twin Cities area:

Robbinsdale: $22.5 million budget, 14,500 citizens, $1551 per person per year
Richfield: $50 million budget, 35,000 citizens, $1429 per person per year
Bloomington: $100 million budget, 85,000 citizens, $1176 per person per year
Brooklyn Park: $95 million budget, 69,000 citizens, $1376 per person per year
St Louis Park: $140 million budget, 44,000 citizens, $3182 per person per year

Do you really believe that paying that much each year in return for being treated like a slave is a good deal? Do you think that attending some council meetings and giving them your opinion might be a good idea?

Insanity... once brain cell at a time

I've now attended city council meetings in five different Twin Cities area municipalities. I used to believe that the most painful place to visit is the local office of the Department of Motor Vehicles, but city council meetings have easily taken the lead. They are, without a doubt, the most insipid and boring meetings on earth. Sitting through almost two hours of one tonight (short, by city council standards), in Robbinsdale, I had the most absurd desire... to run for office. Despite hating politics, and despising meetings, I had a powerful urge to be able to add some plain-spoken sense where none is now allowed. I've long enjoyed being the one person in a group to "cut to the chase"... to say what everyone is thinking and nobody is willing to voice... to say something clearly to avoid more beating around the bush by others.

There is some sort of weird paradigm for such meetings, that requires members to speak in tongues, to avoid coming to the point, and to qualify everything repeatedly. I know these are people who, in personal conversation, must be able to briefly say what they mean, but in meetings, they ramble and restate until it is painful waiting to see whether you can actually determine what their point is. It is worse in city council meetings than any other kind of meeting I've attended.

It is actually very similar to the Chinese Water Torture.

Tonight's meeting included a couple of very good examples of just how controlling, inane, and costly city governments have become. One example involved an apartment building the city clearly wants modified, but it must be done on their terms, and their terms are complex beyond reason. Not only the builder is caught in that complexity, but the council as well. The city has ordinances covering almost all parts of construction and the appearance and size of every aspect. After lengthy negotiations between the builder and city staff (that have clearly almost driven the builder away) the city must still rezone (even though the apartment building has been there for decades), and must pass 5 different variances (exceptions to their own code) to make the plan work. There was, in the council meeting, long discussion about 2 parking spaces, and the width of the driveway through the parking area. There is virtually no aspect of the construction project that doesn't have to meet the approval of the city, and jive with voluminous ordinances and codes.

It really is a wonder that anything gets built, but it is NO wonder why housing costs and rental rates are so high. All of that discussion and redrawing of plans is expensive, and enforced set-backs of every kind reduce the amount of building space. All of those silly expenses get passed on to the eventual residents.

Although the council made it clear that the city is poor... in response to polite pleas from a Seniors Advisory Committee seeking space for a Senior Center, the final discussion of the evening gives a clue as to WHY they might be poor.

Robbinsdale is an old inner-ring suburb next to Minneapolis. Hard to understand them being poor, since the city budget is about $22.5 million for a population of only 14,500. That's a per capita expenditure of $1,551, higher than any of a dozen other suburbs I checked. Robbinsdale certainly has some problems, and my purpose here is not to pick on them. I doubt that they differ from other cities in any significant ways. The problems are universal.

I was there supporting a neighborhood group trying to keep the city from widening a street, rebuilding the water and sewer lines, and inserting a roundabout at an intersection. The widening, and the roundabout, would take some property. The people who live in the neighborhood see no need for the street (a dead-end) being widened, and see no need for the roundabout, which is usually to control heavy traffic. Those who live there say there is little traffic through that intersection.

So, we have the odd situation of citizens not wanting the "improvements" the city engineer seems determined to make. The residents just want the street repaired... resurfaced. In all the discussion between the residents, city engineer, and council, I never heard a reason FOR the expensive proposed development. There WAS a comment that if the sewer or water lines ever DO have a problem that requires work, THEN the city will have to rebuild them... to comply with their own code that has changed since the lines were built..

So... we have no problem, but here's a costly solution anyway. It ain't broke, but let's fix it. Little wonder that the city is broke. It really IS torture... one drop at a time.

There is a truth hidden somewhere in that perplexing insanity. I suspect the city planners would like to drive the current residents away. Their homes are old, and Robbinsdale doesn't have much building space to attract new development. Why do they want to drive away the old and replace it with new development? To derive more taxes from the property. Why do they need more taxes? That's the real question.

I've really never understood why cities go out of their way to "improve" the city. Who are they trying to please? The current residents? Most current residents would like nothing better than to be left in peace and have their taxes not increase. If not the current residents, who then? The current residents are actually the owners of the city government. Who else matters?

If a city were to put itself on a financial diet, lower the tax rates, simplify building codes and ordinances, and remove most zoning restrictions, they would experience an immediate renaissance. Businesses, developers, and residents of all kinds would flock to the area in droves, and the city would quickly become exciting in its diversity, rather than boring in its bland sameness. Real estate prices would rise quickly due to increased demand, offering great opportunity for current property-owners to either sell at lucrative prices or remain to enjoy the excitement. For a "big-box" store to move in, they would have convince others to sell, and pay high prices for the properties.

Problem is... that wouldn't leave much for city employees to do, would it? THERE is the root of the problem... a problem I'll examine in my next commentary.