Tuesday, June 27, 2006
Is democracy always good? I say "no." The California Central Valley city of Davis, famous for its progressive policies, has adopted a municipal code that requires a public referendum for any proposed change in land use currently mapped for agricultural or non-urban use. This will no doubt slow new developments in the city. But democratic votes aren't the best way to make most decisions of government. Doesn't a public vote avoid the problem of special-interest influence on elected representatives? Perhaps, but it holds more drawbacks. First, if the question involves pitting a public benefit versus an arguable individual "right" (no matter how small), the "right" side is bound to get short shrift from the public. NIMBY rises, and the public's respect for a right dissolves, when voters are able to hide behind the secret ballot. Imagine if your right to paint your house pink or to put up a controversial political sign were subject to a vote of your neighbors? Moreover, with democratic decisions, there is no way to police the outcome -- a vote can be motivated by bases such as race, religion (imagine a vote on the siting of an Islamic center), or other unfair grounds. Referenda also are also hampered in many cases by the public's lack of knowledge of the issue, which then results in a disproportionate number of ballots marked by the those with a personal "interest" in the issue.
Yes, representative decisionmaking is imperfect, in that it is subject to undue influence by the powerful and the connected. But it is, for most questions, including land use issues, a better system than direct democracy.
This blog is an Amazon affiliate. Help support Land Use Prof Blog by making purchases through Amazon links on this site at no cost to you.
- Stephen Miller on New Arkansas law requires local governments to pay for a "takings" where certain "regulatory programs" reduce FMV by at least 20 percent
- Josh Galperin on New Arkansas law requires local governments to pay for a "takings" where certain "regulatory programs" reduce FMV by at least 20 percent
- Jesse Richardson on New Arkansas law requires local governments to pay for a "takings" where certain "regulatory programs" reduce FMV by at least 20 percent
- Jamie Baker Roskie on Uber Goes to the State House Seeking Preemption of Local Government Control
- Stephen R. Miller on Why are building inspectors so often on the take?
- Can UberPOOL Make Carpooling Cool?
- Are Earth Day cookies an endangered species?
- Fordham Urban Law Center's Sharing Economy | Sharing City Conference - April 24
- Land Use, Telescopes and Sacred Land in Paradise
- Tekle on Percent-for-Art Ordinances