The controversy over the possibility of an asphalt plant in Qualla, besides offering the spectacle of our politicians and press tripping over themselves to pander to public emotion, gives us the opportunity to really open the debate on land-use planning; what it is and what it should accomplish. H. L. Mencken said, “For every complex problem there is a solution that is simple, neat and wrong.”

There are those in the press and in politics who have used the occasion of this controversy to beat the drum for zoning, offering it as the simple and neat solution to a series of very complex issues. While zoning may be simple and neat, it is also wrong.

Before explaining why zoning is the wrong solution, let’s first dispose of one of the great myths of this debate - all those who oppose zoning are opponents of any planning and the public good to the benefit of their own selfish interest, or, as the press has coded this, “property rights advocates.” Yes, I believe in one’s right to control one’s own property. I believe that is a fundamental tenet of our democracy and a key to preserving our freedom, heritage and culture.

But I also believe that with rights come responsibilities. While I may believe that I have a basic right to use my property as I see fit, I also understand that with that right comes a responsibility to my neighbor and community. Furthermore, as a matter of practical reality in a modern society, I understand that certain uses of property transcend one’s individual rights, and that the community as a whole has a legitimate interest in regulating some private uses of property.

I oppose zoning because in this environment, in the circumstances that currently exist in Jackson County, it is bad public policy that would have exactly the opposite effect that its proponents claim.
Zoning is not a panacea. It has very limited uses as a land-use planning tool. Zoning, more than anything else, is an economic tool that is used to further short-term economic interests. Zoning promotes an environment where the highest priority is to have land and its use seek the highest possible economic value. In a setting where we are trying to control and moderate growth, where we are seeking to preserve open space and farmland, where we are attempting to limit sprawl, zoning would cripple those goals.

The folks in Qualla don’t want an asphalt plant. The folks in Forest Hills don’t want student housing. The folks in Webster and Greens Creek don’t want landfills or industrial parks. The list goes on and on. Nobody wants any bad stuff in their backyard. And the proponents of zoning stand up and say we can stop all that with zoning. Besides failing to recognize reality, that position is a deception of the worst sort. The simple fact is that, like it or not, we need landfills. And if we want roads, we need asphalt plants. If we want the benefits of the university, then we must also have students and student housing.

All the ugly stuff has to go somewhere and, more to the point, it has to be accommodated by someone. Zoning does nothing to answer the difficult questions of how we live with the ugly stuff, how we lessen its impact or make it tolerable.

What zoning does very well is create a system of exclusion and economic bigotry whereby those with power can move the asphalt plants and landfills and other needed but unsavory uses of land into somebody else’s backyard. By creating greater minimum lot sizes, or increasing square footage requirements, or limiting other uses, we can assure that only people of a certain economic level can live in our community. By worshipping property values over all other considerations, we can assure that the bad stuff is pushed off on someone else.

Would zoning have prevented an asphalt plant in Qualla? Perhaps, but one thing is sure - zoning would have established a legal framework through a board of adjustment and the variance process for the possibility of a plant in a neighborhood regardless of the original zoning designation. In the end, economic considerations will trump every other factor.

So what is the answer to our dilemma?

First it is recognizing that there is no magic bullet. There is no simple and easy answer. It is recognizing that the debate should not be about how to keep stuff out of our backyard but about how to live with it, about how to minimize its impact. I am not advocating putting an asphalt plant in anyone’s community, but since we can’t rope off one corner of the county and say this is where the asphalt plants and landfills and industrial parks ought to go, our only choice is to develop a set of conditions that make these things tolerable. Surely we can come up with a process that develops regulations that protect communities while not being overly burdensome to plant owners.

In the case of the asphalt plant, can we not determine that a certain amount of setback, buffering and landscaping is needed to contain odors and obscure views? Can we not come up with requirements that the developer put in roads and infrastructure in such a way as to protect the surrounding community? Can we not develop bonding and compensation structures to protect surrounding property owners in the event of real economic loss due to property devaluation?

We must also recognize that land-use planning and zoning are not synonymous. Land-use planning is a whole range of tools and concepts. Land-use planning includes an honest appraisal of tax policy so that folks are not pushed off their land by increasing property values. Land-use planning is identifying high-impact uses and being proactive in developing fair, reasonable and effective regulations to accommodate those uses and protect our communities. Land-use planning is about understanding the need to limit our “I wants” and “they shoulds.” Yes, we need modern school buildings and greenways and recreation centers, but we also need to be able to pay for them in a responsible way. Land-use planning is about coordinating the construction of infrastructure and recognizing that every road you build and every sewer line you extend means not only more growth associated with that expansion but also the creation of heightened expectation for future expansion. It means developing ways to ensure that those who reap the economic benefits of development pay their fair share of the burdens. Land-use planning means protecting our streams and soils. It means developing affordable incentives to preserving farmland and forests. Land-use planning means bringing all the institutions of the county together, including the university. It means recognizing that no institution is an entity unto itself and that economic development is measured by the gains of all, not just a select few. Land-use planning is about economic development and recognizing that the end is not how much new business and industry we brought in but about how much wealth was created, how many lives were improved and how many people were lifted up. Land-use planning is hard, mainly because land-use planning is not really about the land, it is about people and how they can live well, individually and as a community.

Abraham Lincoln said, “I like to see a man proud of the place in which he lives. I like to see a man live so that his place will be proud of him.” Perhaps that ought to be the ideal behind land-use planning.
We face difficult and complex problems. Let’s put aside our prejudices, agendas and self-interest and get down to the very hard work of crafting solutions that are fair, reasonable and inclusive.

(Mark Jamison is a member of the Jackson County Planning Board who lives in Cullowhee.)

 

Back to Top
The Smoky Mountain News