“[Governor Dannel] Malloy has proposed House Bill 6851 now before the Legislature. It would create an 11-member quasi-public agency
and give it control of train station projects statewide.
“The agency would be called the Connecticut Transit
Corridor Development Authority. Four members would be appointed by the governor
and three by other political leaders in the Legislature. The other four members
would be state commissioners, whose jobs are bestowed by the governor.
“The new authority would have the power to seize property
within half a mile of any train station, enter into contracts with private
developers, build what projects it chose and sell bonds to finance them.”
“According to the bill, the authority would "ensure
that development near transit stations occurs more quickly and in concert with
statewide transportation initiatives."
“The authority would have no obligation to city leaders
except to ‘coordinate.’ Mayors could not vote on projects but would be ‘consulted.’"
But for a sharp-eyed legislator, State Rep. Gail Lavielle of Wilton, the bill might have passed through
the usual legislative process without much fuss or notice.
Mrs. Lavielle asked DOT Commissioner Jim Redeker whether he
was aware of the bill. Nope – never heard of it.
Scholars now tell us that Otto Von Bismark, the Iron Chancellor
of Germany, did NOT say, “If you like laws and sausages, you should never watch
either one being made.” But Bismark, who knew how to turn a phrase, very easily
could have said it. The making of laws in other than a totalitarian state is
not a pretty process. In a one-party state like Connecticut, it is fairly easy
for the dominant party to stick a pig in a poke and slide it, unobserved,
through the sausage making machine.
Governor Dannel Malloy has a genius for opacity and secrecy.
But this pig, thanks largely to Mrs. Lavielle, is now out of the poke,
squealing about the countryside. House Bill 6851 simply replaces the operations
of municipal zoning boards with the equivalent of a state zoning board, and the
noise it has made in Stamford, Mr. Malloy’s old stomping grounds when he was Mayor
of the city from 1995 to 2009, is raucous and rebellious. As Stamford Mayor,
Mr. Malloy was not on good terms with opposition to his authoritarian rule, but
he may have met his match in Stamford Zoning Board member Barry Michelson,
who is not alone in considering House Bill 6851 an undemocratic land grab and a
reckless abridgment of local control.
The intent of the bill is clear on the face of it. “This
means,” Mr. Michelson said, “the state doesn't want local folks to control their
development as they see fit. They want to tell local folks what they feel is in
the best interest of local folks."
And who is “they”? According to the bill, four members of
the Board are appointed by Mr. Malloy, three by political leaders in the
Democratic dominated General Assembly, and the remaining four are state
commissioners who serve at the behest of Mr. Malloy. It is Mr. Malloy who will
control the decisions made by the new state zoning board. These decisions, unlike
those of a municipal zoning board, need not be affirmed at public hearings. The
new zoning process is on auto pilot; all land within a half mile of any train
station – on both side of the track – may be seized by a state that does not
wish to observe the niceties of eminent domain possession.
Even Bismarck in all his glory would have flinched in the
presence of such an arrogant, undemocratic and likely unconstitutional raid on
private property. The ownership of property and the disposition of property are
married together in such a way as to be indivisible. The person – or in this
case the gubernatorial board invested with kingly powers – who may dispose of
the property is the true owner of it. And the ownership of property is no
little thing under constitutional governance, because it is bound up with “the
inalienable” rights mentioned in the Declaration of Independence, “among which
are the preservation of life, & liberty, & the pursuit of happiness.”
The Virginia Declaration of Rights, written by George Mason and
adopted in 1776, makes plain the vital connection between property rights and
happiness: “That all men are by nature equally free and independent and have
certain inherent rights, of which, when they enter into a state of society,
they cannot, by any compact, deprive or divest their posterity; namely, the
enjoyment of life and liberty, with the means of acquiring and possessing
property, and pursuing and obtaining happiness and safety.”
Owing to Mrs. Lavielle’s timely intervention, the bill has
been sent back to the legislative shop for much needed repairs.
Comments
Members of zoning board are not agents or employees of a town. They constitute a legal entity.
--------------
The U.S. Constitution, the "bill of rights" not withstanding, was not essentially to do with individual rights, was certainly not a libertarian program. A creation of the states, the Federal government has usurped state power since 1860 in the name of individual equality, initially, but increasingly in the name of a Progressive reading of the "general welfare" clause. A similar transformation has occurred here in Nutmegistan. Although the State was the creature of the towns, and although its original Constitution had zero to say about individual rights, including property rights, now the State asserts that municipalities are its creatures having the powers, and only those powers, delegated to them by the State. The State, however, has not become libertarian, but marches toward egalitarian authoritarianism.
I used to object to land use regs out of libertarian ideology. Now I'm opposed, to the extent I am, because I'm opposed to social engineering. Among the reasons our cities have been reduced to ghetto status is that they pre-existed the segregation of uses central to the zoning scheme. As suburban municipalities adopted zoning it was employed to exclude uses like apartment buildings or small houses on small lots; i.e., to exclude people of modest(er) incomes. If you think America's, but especially Connecticut's, cities are well designed and humane, I have a busway I want to sell you.
So, in conclusion, just say no to Malloy's proposed expansion of State land use regulatory authority.
------------
The situation with land use regs resembles that with school administration; the local control is more apparent than real. Zoning commissions may not be agents of the State, as are boards of ed., but they operate independently of municipal governments and implement State policy more than local custom or tradition. There is substantive similarity between the results of land use planning and of our Germanic education "system;" gutted cities and lost souls, dysfunctional urban zones and "men without chests." And, actually, there is a causal connection between the abysmal results of our attempt at rational land use and those of the government schools administered by district. Exclusionary zoning facilitates that which the desire for a "good" school district impels; middle class urban flight. The ghetto-ization of our cities is an unintended consequence of Horace Mann's progressive education movement.