.jpg)
The Racetrack Next Door: Rights Incur Responsibilities
Posted by: Marilyn Bethany
Posted on: Thursday, April 16, 2009
Comments
It’s funny that you acknowledge Libertarians can be responsible people, but then proceed to paint most of us as a bunch of property-rights wing nuts.
The Libertarians I know are hardly anarchists. They believe in the rule of law and fully acknowledge that there are times when the free market and the public interest are at odds.
As you have correctly noted, that’s why we have zoning, environmental and anti-trust laws. The difference is most Libertarians would draw the line at a different place than you. So it’s really more a matter of degrees, as opposed to the simple spectacle of a few zealots showing up at a public meeting complaining that their rights are being usurped because they can’t operate a hog farm next to a school.
I agree that your right to flail your fists ends at my face. But there also needs to be some balance between environmental/aesthetic concerns and economic benefit. After all we could cut greenhouse grasses by 50% if we simply banned the internal combustion engine. But to do so would be economically ruinous, so we don’t do it.
In this case, it looks like Mr. Wilzig’s project would have little economic benefit and cause his neighbors demonstrable harm. Plus, the guy has little respect for the law—something Libertarians are not inclined to tolerate.
Based on what you’ve written here, I would oppose the project (and I’m a Libertarian!).
My nuisance problem, just over the Kingston-Rhinecliff bridge on the west side of the Hudson, is that the Town Of Ulster has a training facility a third of a mile from my house. Fire training, no problem.
Small arms training for the local Town of Ulster Police, no problem. I want their use of weaponry practiced and as safe as possible. Practice by the City of Kingston and Ulster County Leos, well maybe.
But now the ToU wants to make the range the state of the art go-to practice range for the Hudson Valley, and already the users include the FBI, State Police, National Guard, and you name it up and down the Hudson. Rifle, full auto. Baghdad-on-the-Hudson just down the road. Who do I call? The Police?
You can see the schedule here.
http://www.ulsterpolice.com/Range Schedule.htm
The range is pretty well booked up and the practice season is barely begun. Does great things for my peace of mind and property values.
I am an adjoining property owner to Alan Wilzig. This obnoxious racetrack and all it’s noise has tested my sanity over and over for the past three years. Sam’s article is so common sense and gives me some comfort. I hope the Taghkanic ZBA will see the light and put this nightmare to rest.
Diane Rodriguez
West Taghkanic
Thanks to everyone for their comments!
TERRY: I think the problem is that the word “libertarian” (and the ideas originating from Hayek) has been largely hijacked by people motivated by greed, not principles. It has become more a movement to exempt corporations from any requirement to be responsible, rather than one to secure liberty for the individual. The goal now often seems to be to simply eliminate even the most common-sensical oversight (for example, would any of us want to ingest medicines that are untested?), rather than to have a society based on common-sense, limited rules. The think-tank for which my father worked for most of his life is mostly an exception to this shift in the movement: http://www.aier.org.
I’d add that I don’t find it useful to conceive of the economy and the environment as inherently at odds, though that is a common formulation. In our region especially, the environment in many senses *is* the economy. For example, many homes are built and purchased because people consider this an attractive, rural place to live. Tourism (which generally hovers at #1 or #2 among the State’s industries) depends in many respects on scenery, natural beauty and outdoor attractions. If we trash our environment here, we also hurt ourselves economically in the long run. The answer to greenhouse gases is not to go overboard and ban cars, but to take rational steps on both a personal and social level—like reducing our individual wasteful energy practices, while also finally requiring car makers to achieve the higher mileage targets they have been capable of reaching for decades.
In any case, I suspect if we sat down we’d agree more than disagree, and I appreciate your position on the racetrack…
STEWART: It can feel difficult and daunting to take on a problem such as the escalating use of a government firing range. The difficulty is compounded by the fact that some government land uses are exempted from ordinary regulations. That said, there is almost always a way to address these situations, if you find the right allies and advisors. I would gather up all the information you can on your own, both about your personal experience of noise and other impacts, and also about the rules governing this facility. For example, does the Town have a noise ordinance, and how is the property in question zoned? Talk with local officials and your neighbors; no doubt there are others with similar concerns nearby.
Then take what you’ve learned to several good lawyers for a free consultation: If they took your case, how would they approach it? What you are looking for is a legal “handle” (their terminology) which allows you leverage to keep the activity at a reasonable level. Don’t give up hope, there is almost always a solution.
DIANE: If the Taghkanic ZBA doesn’t do the right thing, I would hope that there would be a will among the track’s opponents to go the distance and seek relief in court. It already appears to me (from what I’ve heard) like the Planning Board did not do its job, and if the Town agencies have not upheld their own laws, the courts should. People should not get discouraged and follow through on what was started.
Sam, I’m pretty sure that a Planning Board - or any centralized unelected Board wielding fairly unchecked power (think of the ambiguously defined Site Plan Review), was exactly what Hayek warned against in Road to Serfdom. Of course, in his day the “Planning Board” wore brown shirts and took your “property rights” with a knock on the door at midnight…
It seems to me that the Libertarian view would be to allow Wiltzig to build the track with limits on usage - certain days or a threshold on decibels - with severe penalties for breaking the agreement (like non-use). That way the individuals all get full property use and all be happy.
TIM: Thanks for your thoughts. Though, I think you just triggered Godwin’s Law with the reference to “brown shirts,” I’ll try to engage with the substance of your suggestion…
Let’s posit, for the moment, that your proposed resolution of the Wilzig dispute is the right one. This begs the question: How does one actually arrive at that resolution? By what mechanism?
Since you have implied that a Planning Board is a quasi-fascistic and unchecked entity, I can’t see how your solution would ever come to pass, given the facts in play.
Remember that Wilzig’s initial position was to go ahead and bulldoze, without checking with anyone (despite having been warned by his former realtor, also the head of the Zoning Board at the time, that it was not a permissible use in the Town). When he was caught in violation of the Town’s codes, he persisted in arguing that he should not be subject to any regulation, though everyone else in Town is required to meet its very minimal.
Only when a Town agency (the ZBA) and later the NYS DEC and the courts ordered him to abide by the law did he recognize the Planning Board’s authority, and only after polluting the process by backing candidates that would first appoint people to that Board who supported him.
Given the above, what reason is there to believe that Wilzig would submit to your conditions in the absence of some minimal but enforced regulation? I would say that there is no such evidence.
Moreover, a Planning Board such as the ones found in our region’s towns hardly has “unchecked power.” Each must follow clear procedures, guided by the laws of the Town, County and State. It must seek advisory opinions from other involved agencies, and base its decision in Town, County, State and Federal laws; it must also seek public input on its deliberations.
In the event that any such Board miscarries its duties (which certainly does happen), applicants or citizens have the right to appeal to the next “highest” authority, in this case New York State’s Supreme Court.
These procedures may feel onerous to those who feel they should be able to do whatever they like, whenever they like, with absolutely no consideration for neighbors or society. I argue (and Hayek argues) that some basic rules and structure must be in place for people to actually enjoy any meaningful freedom, otherwise there is anarchy.
And so again, I ask: Who would decide what was the soundest course of action in this instance—given that neither Wilzig nor his neighbors have been anywhere close to agreeing on any compromise? The notion that such resolutions can spring up out of nowhere, spontaneously, and in the absence of any enforcement, is of course absurd, especially in this instance…
Sam,
Points all good, and I’m glad you caught the Godwinization - what was that? 4 posts?
Wiltzig is clearly wrong in bulldozing without approval, where approval for this type of action is clearly required. And the enforcement procedures that are in place clearly worked to bring him to accountability. But now the case is in fact in front of the ZBA and it is their job to take a course of action - thus my Libertarian argument for allowing the track with restrictions. It may not be the best resolution, that isn’t for me to decide thankfully, but simply what I deemed the most Libertarian.
Whether Wiltzig follows the edict is a separate argument.
On another note - loved the article comparing Columbia/Berkshire counties.
Anyone know what happened at the April 21 ZBA hearing? Did Wilzig get his permit?
The ZBA took comments from dozens and dozens of residents against the track, and held the comment period open another 10 days before reconvening, presumably when they’ll make a decision:
http://registerstar.com/articles/2009/04/24/news/news02.txt
To All, Sam seems to have hit the nail on the head. Thank you. As for the suggestion to let Wilzig finish off his track because he already built it is absurd thinking. His behavior to date would indicate that he will adhere to his desires restrictions or no restrictions. It’s like allowing the school bully to monitor the hall.
Agree. If the argument is that Wilzig will suffer hardship b’c he already started the track, then the hardship is self-created. And boards and commissions are not supposed to consider self-created hardships when evaluating the meritworthiness of a project.
Wilzig opponents won a round in court today:
http://www.grangergroup.cc/#legal_pdfs
Bold, italics, strong, emphasis, and block quote tags are allowed in comments.
Notify me of follow-up comments?
Comment Guidelines
As we believe it promotes responsibility, civility and neighborliness, we encourage Commenters to use their real names unless there is compelling reason not to. In any case, profanity, personal attacks and unsubstantiated or excessive criticism of people or places will not be tolerated and will be deleted. By completing this form you are agreeing to abide by these rules and all terms laid out in the Rural Intelligence User Agreement.
For questions concerning the use of personally identifiable information, please refer to our Privacy Policy.
IMPORTANT: You must be a member of Rural Intelligence and logged into the site to post comments. Already a member? Click here to login. Want to become a member? Click here to register.
Please enter the word you see in the image below:
Full Article
On April 21, at the Taghkanic Fire House, at 6:30 p.m. there will be a public hearing before the Zoning Board of Appeals on the controversial issue of Alan Wilzig‘s proposed racetrack, which has already won Planning Board conditional approval. Here, Sam Pratt, who had been a writer for national magazines before leading the successful fight against the massive, coal-fired St. Lawrence Cement proposal in Columbia County from 1998 - 2005, weighs in. An earlier, condensed version of this piece appeared in 2006 in The Independent, the now-defunct Columbia County newspaper.
The words “property rights” often get bandied about whenever a local controversy erupts over how to use (or abuse) our landscape. Developers can always count on at least one local crank or business lobby to shout “property rights!” in a crowded public meeting.
But what does that shopworn phrase really mean?
Like the “teabaggers” who mounted (mostly lame) tax protests this past week, many self-styled Libertarians consider zoning and planning as a Soviet-style plot to defraud landowners of their personal property. Wrapping themselves in the flag and the Constitution, they act as if even the simplest social contracts are an intolerable imposition on their freedom.
In truth, such ideologues are not Libertarians at all. With their rigid opposition to the most basic rules of civil society, they sound a lot more like anarchists. For what they preach is not Liberty, but Lawlessness.
As the son of a Libertarian economist, I started hearing about “property rights” at an early age. I can report that there are, in fact, principled and thoughtful supporters of the movement.
But true Libertarians have little in common with the more visible and extreme elements who operate under the euphemistic name of the “Wise Use” movement. Wise Use is a hodgepodge of splinter groups which seek to abolish all planning, all zoning, all environmental regulation, and all oversight of corporations. Not surprisingly, these groups have some big funders among big business.
Unlike the unwise rantings of that movement, prinicipled supporters of property rights make clear distinctions between enjoying one’s freedom and engaging in a free-for-all.
The godfather of the Libertarian movement was Friedrich Hayek, an economist and philosopher who wrote eloquently about an individual’s rights to personal freedom. But even Hayek did not favor a society totally devoid of rules. In order for each individual to fully enjoy his or her freedoms, Hayek argued, society requires some underlying structure. An absence of laws would lead swiftly to an absence of liberty.
For example:
* Freedom of travel requires enough police on the roads to make sure you’re not waylaid by bandits and highwaymen every few miles;
* Free elections require enough election laws and agencies to protect against voter fraud; and
* Free commerce demands enough oversight to deter rip-off artists, from low-level snake oil salesmen to high-level operators like Bernie Madoff and Ken Lay
While some imagine that “the market” will solve all such problems over time, the slow-moving machinery of free markets aren’t much help to help the person whose rights are being stepped on right now. A person getting assaulted will dial 911—not the dusty Wise Use office on the 2nd floor of a distant strip mall.
In short, principled Libertarians do believe in rules and regulations… just enough to ensure freedom, no more and no less.
The current situation in Taghkanic is instructive.
Way back in 2005, multimillionaire from New Jersey named Alan Wilzig was scouting for land Upstate. He was told explicitly by a Town official (who also happened to be his realtor) that motorized racetracks were not permitted under the local Zoning code. But instead of looking for another piece of land in another town, he bought a farm in Taghkanic, and decided to just go ahead and start bulldozing a mile-long racetrack for himself—rules be damned.
Unlike the 98% of residents who play by the Town’s minimal zoning code (seeking permits for fences around their pools and variances for their garages), Wilzig chose to live by his own private laws. Even after the local building inspector issued him an order to stop what he was doing, Wilzig appealed that decision over his head. In the meantime, he just kept on bulldozing. At least until the State fined him $50,000.
Caught red-handed, Wilzig then claimed his racetrack was just “an extension of his driveway” and a “customary accessory use” to his one- family home… See, it was no different than putting a basketball hoop on a garage, he said.
Denied that line of argument by the local Zoning Board, Wilzig went to court against the Town—and lost. After nursing this wound for a time, his next move was to back candidates in local elections, the better to stack the agencies overseeing his activities in his favor. One such agency, the Town Planning Board, has now given him conditional approval to go forward; on Tuesday, Wilzig will be back before the Zoning Board for a second try.
And sure enough, as this racetrack issue has dragged on for several years, Wilzig has tried to invoke “property rights” in his defense. His adherents (primarily those who have gained some direct advantage from allying themselves with him) have sought to paint the put-upon multimillionaire as a victim of excess regulation.
Such motormouths ignore that Wilzig’s injuries have been wholly self- inflicted. They also ignore the simple fact that not a single farmer on an ATV or teenager on a dirtbike would be affected if the Town were to restrict extraordinarily wasteful and intrustive “hobbies”—such as mile-long racetracks—which infringe on neighbors’ own property rights.
This brings us to a precept of principled Libertarianism: the so- called “swing your fist” test of personal freedom. As the saying goes: Your rights end where my nose begins. One person’s ability to free enjoyment of their own property does not extend to spoiling the rights of others. For example, musicians have every right to practice their craft in their own homes; but a residence in a crowded neighborhood is not the right place for an all-night drum studio.
Property rights do not include the right to tread on other peoples’ rights. Nor do they entitle anyone to ignore common-sense laws that reasonably protect everyone from common nuisances and hazards. Property rights incur property responsibilities, including respect for the rights and laws of the rest of the community.
Whatever happens with Wilzig’s track next Tuesday, at least it is better understood now in Taghkanic that the Town does in fact have rules — if not well-enforced or understood ones. (In Wilzig’s unique case, it is unfortunately not clear that he has learned any lesson besides how to work the system, rather than ignoring it.) But the solution to imperfect regulation is not to eliminate the rules, but to improve the regulators. In most towns, this is done at the ballot box.
Meanwhile, as battles rage across the region over local land use controversies, many towns keep struggling to adopt new or updated Comprehensive Plans. These efforts, too, run into the “property rights” buzzsaw. And unfortunately, the end product of these lengthy local dialogues is often a watered-down document which then sits on a dusty shelf, ignored and toothless.
I’d suggest a new approach. Without giving up entirely on existing Comprehensive Plan reviews, elected officials might start looking for more direct and less complicated legislative solutions to ensure that a reasonable set of individual rights are balanced with the need for community harmony. Call it a Good Neighbor Policy for each Town.
A Good Neighbor Policy would clearly spell out a set of common-sense, locally-specific standards by which members of the community respect each others’ property rights.
An agricultural community like Taghkanic could safeguard traditional farming and recreational uses, while guaranteeing open space protection and freedom from extraordinary nuisances (such as racetracks). More urban communities like Hudson or Rhinebeck would aim to balance the desire for nightlife with neighbors’ need to get a good night’s sleep.
By looking at these issues in the context of being a good neighbor, rather than through the distorted lens of divisive and doctrinaire notions of “property rights,” each town could strike its own uniquely- suited balance of individual rights and social needs. Sensible rules, more than high fences, should make good neighbors.
Common sense rules of neighborly behavior—or lawlessness? The obvious choice should be as loud and clear as a racetrack in the middle of a cornfield.
