A Stitch in Haste

Libertarians are always highly suspicious of zoning laws, land use restrictions, landmark preservation rules and other infringements of basic property rights (not to mention eminent domain of course).

Usually the rationalizations of property restrictions involve some appeal to externalities, either positive (e.g., keep an area clear for green space) or negative (e.g., who wants to live next to a pig farm?).

But the externalities used to have at least some basis in reality. Something cognizable and hopefully measurable (and exempt from politics), so that, hopefully and at the very least, some objective criteria could be used to make something resembling intelligent policy decisions.


No more:

Chicago's bars and liquor stores should have to prove they aren't hurting the neighborhood if residents say otherwise and want to shut them down, Mayor Richard Daley said Tuesday in announcing plans for a new ordinance.
...
Under the measure, 51 percent of voters living within 500 feet of a liquor establishment could sign petitions saying it's having a negative impact on the neighborhood. At a hearing of the Mayor's License Commission, the owner of a bar or liquor store would have to prove otherwise. Currently, the burden of proof is on the residents who complained.

A negative impact would be defined as hurting property values; increasing noise, litter or congestion; or leading to repeated arrests in the area.

If the commission rules against a business, it would close and could reopen only with a court order. Under current law, a bar or liquor store may stay open until all appeals are exhausted.
...
Daley also plans to introduce a second ordinance that says serving food must be the primary activity of a restaurant, and alcohol can be only a complement. It is aimed at preventing liquor establishments from masquerading as restaurants, Daley said.

"If they're not in the business to sell food, they're not a restaurant, simple as that," Daley said.

Gee, and I used to think that it was as simple as "it's your property, use it as you see fit." Silly me.

Now of course this is not criminal law, so pesky little concepts such as "innocent until proven guilty" don't apply. On the other hand, property interests are (supposedly) still protected by the Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment, so one wonders whether such an ordinance withstands scrutiny. Is "51% of the neighbors don't like you" a legitimate government interest in depriving you of your livelihood?

I think not.

Oh and don't forget: even if you don't have uppity neighbors, your bar may still face a crippling smoking ban.

Cheers.