Manchester has a good problem to have

[KBCraig]

The columnist is complaining, but I think it's a great problem to have: Manchester has a one-man zoning enforcement division, and he's too busy with paperwork to get out on the streets and enforce the law. 

http://www.unionleader.com/article.aspx?headline=City+Hall%3a+Who+you+gonna+call%3f&articleId=6fb14c02-f260-40be-a6ee-0f32d91a7127

City Hall: Who you gonna call?

By RILEY YATES
Union Leader Staff

MANCHESTER'S zoning ordinances span 150 pages and govern everything from where your company or your home can be built, to which areas are historic, to which signs are appropriate, where.

Guess how many inspectors the city has to enforce the rules.

Here's a hint: It's slightly more than zero.

Meet Glenn Gagne, who says his role as Manchester's lone zoning inspector keeps him so tied up in paperwork he spends 90 percent of his time in the office.

"It's a lack of manpower. It's the biggest issue facing us," Gagne said.

Last week, Gagne was called before the Committee on Public Safety and Traffic, whose chairman said it takes too long for the inspector to respond to neighborhood complaints about zoning violations.

Alderman Ed Osborne of Ward 5 said he'll call about unregistered cars being parked on a home's yard, creating an eyesore. It can take weeks before Gagne is able to investigate.

"This is what I want to know: How are we going to cure this?" Osborne said.

Complaints about quality of life issues are tossed around a lot by ward alderman, whose posts rely on solving constituent problems. They say better maintained neighborhoods could help fight crime, a key concern lately among city leaders.

"Things have to be made better for the people who follow all the rules and maintain their property," said Alderman Bill Shea of Ward 7.

Last year, one idea for improving neighborhoods was a garbage compliance officer who could write tickets to enforce cleanliness.

That proposal fell to this year's budget fights.

Osborne wants the Building Department to cross-train its housing inspectors to also be on the look out for zoning violations. Other committee members suggested providing Gagne with better technology to make it easier to write his reports.

Max Sink, deputy building commissioner, said Osborne's idea has merit since the city's four housing inspectors are already out in the field.

But he warned that asking them to take on extra duties means less time for housing inspections, which ensure living quarters are up to city standards.

"There's no such thing as free time," Sink said.

The Building Department was asked to come up with recommendations and report back to the committee.

[tracysaboe]

Now, if we could just get rid of him job too. . .

Obviously it's not necessary if life is going on without it being done.

Tracy

[d_goddard]

Heh. That reminds me of the flyer I picked up at the Concord courthouse. It was a lengthy complaint by the beureaucrats about how their funding was chronically low, and had recently been cut YET AGAIN, and so they are "forced" to have reduced office hours.
The "reduced" hours were of course just fine. 8:30AM-4:30 PM, I think.
I'll take the tax savings over paying for another pencil-pusher anytime!

[aries]

I don't want anybody inspecting my zones.

If he comes up for re-election or something, a free-stater in Manchester should run.

[Ruger Mason]

I don't want anybody inspecting my zones.

If he comes up for re-election or something, a free-stater in Manchester should run.

It is not an elected position.

[Ruger Mason]

You guys are belittling the problem, but I for one would not want my neighbors piling abandoned cars and trash in their yards either.  Plenty of zoning laws are unreasonable and unjust, but I should have the right to live in a neighborhood that disallows people turning their front lawns into junk yards.  Within the very flawed legal framework currently existing in Manchester, I hope that Gagne gets the help he needs.

I'd rather have a neighborhood covenant than zoning, but I consider the zoning of my property and my neighbors to be a rough, if flawed, equivelent.  The ordinance that disallows my neighbors from parking cars in their yards is one of my property rights, and I expect it to be enforced.

[Braddogg]

The ordinance that disallows my neighbors from parking cars in their yards is one of my property rights, and I expect it to be enforced.

So your property rights extend to someone else's property?  I hope your neighbor doesn't feel the same way about your shrubbery, or the color of your house, or the number of windows you have . . . .

[Ruger Mason]

The ordinance that disallows my neighbors from parking cars in their yards is one of my property rights, and I expect it to be enforced.

So your property rights extend to someone else's property?  I hope your neighbor doesn't feel the same way about your shrubbery, or the color of your house, or the number of windows you have . . . .

I have the right to contract with my neighbors in order limit our respective use of our properties, for whatever end we feel mutually beneficial.  If my neighbor violates that contract, he has violated my property rights:  the contract we both signed.

Zoning is flawed.  No initial contract was ever signed between nearby landowners.  But those ordinances were passed decades ago, long before most of the people in my neighborhood bought their homes.  Now, whenever someone buys a house in my neighborhood, they are agreeing to the zoning ordinance.  Because zoning has essentially prevented the natural evolution of covenants, deed restrictions and the like, I consider zoning to be basically equivelent.  I bought my house in part because of the zoning restrictions.  I can bank on the fact that a gas station won't be built next door.  And I can tell prospective buyers of my house that too -- no gas stations, junk yards or dog kennels will be built next to your new home.

[Braddogg]

I have the right to contract with my neighbors in order limit our respective use of our properties, for whatever end we feel mutually beneficial.  If my neighbor violates that contract, he has violated my property rights:  the contract we both signed.

Since you then go on to say that no contract was ever signed, I wonder why you insist in your first paragraph that there must be a signed contract.

Zoning is flawed.  No initial contract was ever signed between these neighbors.  But those ordinances were passed decades ago, long before most of the people in my neighborhood bought their homes.  Now, whenever someone buys a house in my neighborhood, they are agreeing to the zoning ordinance.  Because zoning has essentially prevented the natural evolution of the covenants, deed restrictions and the like, I consider zoning to be basically equivelent.  I bought my house in part because of the zoning restrictions.  I can bank on the fact that a gas station won't be built next door.  And I can tell prospective buyers of my house that too -- no gas stations, junk yards or dog kennels will be built next to your new home.

Zoning laws can change without your permission.  When I was in high school, I worked for the public access channel and taped the planning board and zoning commission meetings.  Every two weeks, I'd see these boards sit down for three or four hours and decide who deserved a variance and who deserved the enforcement of what you would argue is an implicit contract.  I'm not familiar with the law in your town, but it is perfectly possible where I was that a person could open a dog kennel with a variance from the zoning commission or, in certain cases, a majority vote in town meeting.  And then that decision would be enforced with violence on people who never agreed to it.  "Flawed" is a mild term for what's wrong with zoning.

[d_goddard]

"Flawed" is a mild term for what's wrong with zoning.

Agreed 100%
And the good thing is, virtually every town has a few people who've been burned by the stupidity, and indeed the unAmerican nature, of "zoning".
Eviscerating the power of zoning boards seems to me like an acheivable goal.
I would have to say, it's not my immediate-term, highest-priority issue, but it is one I'd help with if someone is working it (though again to be frank I think there are bigger fish to fry). I know CNHT (the group, not just Jane) have been VERY active for years in pointing out the Badness of Zoning.

[FrankChodorov]

"Flawed" is a mild term for what's wrong with zoning.

Agreed 100%
And the good thing is, virtually every town has a few people who've been burned by the stupidity, and indeed the unAmerican nature, of "zoning".
Eviscerating the power of zoning boards seems to me like an acheivable goal.
I would have to say, it's not my immediate-term, highest-priority issue, but it is one I'd help with if someone is working it (though again to be frank I think there are bigger fish to fry). I know CNHT (the group, not just Jane) have been VERY active for years in pointing out the Badness of Zoning.

zoning is nothing more than a blanket community response to attempt to control negative externalities to their socially created land values.

unless and until you find a more convenient way they will continue to be supported...

nobody wants to "contract with each individual neighbor in order limit respective uses of their properties, for whatever end they feel are mutually beneficial"

it is just too complicated...

[Ruger Mason]

I have the right to contract with my neighbors in order limit our respective use of our properties, for whatever end we feel mutually beneficial.  If my neighbor violates that contract, he has violated my property rights:  the contract we both signed.

Since you then go on to say that no contract was ever signed, I wonder why you insist in your first paragraph that there must be a signed contract.

That's one of the flaws.  I'll try to explain again.  The initial zoning ordinance and almost all subsequent amendments and variances were acts of theft.  Yet, the zoning ordinance is a reality.  Because zoning is considered "good enough" by most people as a means of protecting their property from perceived "incompatible uses", the free-market equivelent -- deed restrictions -- have not matured in places with strict zoning ordinances.  So property owners have no choice but to rely on zoning.  The problem is that the theft has already occured.  How do you untangle it?

An analogy... You could say the land I own now was once stolen from some native American tribe 300 years ago.  Does that make my claim to the land illegitamate?  Likewise, that same was later "stolen" by the city from an earlier owner and placed under zoning.  Does that make the restrictions on the property I consented to when I bought the land (and the zoning "contract" with the city) illegitamate?

[Ruger Mason]

Zoning laws can change without your permission.  When I was in high school, I worked for the public access channel and taped the planning board and zoning commission meetings.  Every two weeks, I'd see these boards sit down for three or four hours and decide who deserved a variance and who deserved the enforcement of what you would argue is an implicit contract.  I'm not familiar with the law in your town, but it is perfectly possible where I was that a person could open a dog kennel with a variance from the zoning commission or, in certain cases, a majority vote in town meeting.  And then that decision would be enforced with violence on people who never agreed to it.  "Flawed" is a mild term for what's wrong with zoning.

I agree with everything you say.  Perhaps "flawed" is mild, but the typical property owner in a city supports some form of land use restrictions.  I am uninterested in screaming "robbery!" without proposing a solution.  If you seek to simply erase zoning ordinances from the books without proposing a way to transition to a free-market system that continues to permit contractual restrictions that property owners demand, you're doomed to failure.

Your point about zoning laws changing without your permission illustrates my point.  If Manchester's zoning ordinance were repealed, it would be done without my permission.  The restriction I thought I bought when I bought my house would disappear overnight.  The next day my neighbor turns his house into a dog kennel.

[Ruger Mason]

nobody wants to "contract with each individual neighbor in order limit respective uses of their properties, for whatever end they feel are mutually beneficial"

it is just too complicated...

Bull.  Its done all the time.  Houston, America's 5th largest city, has no zoning, but land use is managed by deed restrictions.  Such contracts are rarely done on person-to-person basis.  They are done at the community level, usually when the a development is first built.  It is much harder to do in existing neighborhoods.

[Braddogg]

The problem is that the theft has already occured.  How do you untangle it?

You don't.  You acknowledge the facts on the ground, make your case for a private restitution through an argument to morality, and then hope that "justice" is acheived.  If not, then at least the state-sponsored violence has ended.  Same thing with zoning.  Make zoning the de facto deed restrictions, and let people change the restrictions by mutual consent with abbutters, like what would happen in a Free Market situation (as opposed to how it is done now, which is town-wide -- people living on the other side of town deciding for a zoning variance to allow a dog kennel to open up next to your house).