Local Authoritarians

Freedom starts at home.

At Reform Congress, we spend a lot of time thinking about members of Congress manipulating the system for personal power, to address their personal agenda or to thwart others from making choices they deem “wrong.” Fortunately, the wheels of Congress move slowly, and it is difficult for individuals to impose their authoritarian ideals upon the masses.

Unfortunately, however, the greatest dangers to personal freedom are generally much closer to home. Our state governments affect our lives a great deal. Witness the vast difference between states that locked down business and closed schools during the pandemic compared to those who took a more balanced approach.  In a similar way, rules made by our local municipalities and school boards can dramatically affect our daily lives. Local measures pick our pockets and restrict our freedom in many ways. This is where Eminent Domain and other property restrictions reside. Hidden fees, taxes and fines can abound – all for the greater good of the ‘community’ as defined by a small group of people.

When we were raising our boys, the village we lived in updated their property maintenance codes. The stated reason for the change was to improve the “health and safety” of village residents. The village board members proposing the changes did not, however, allow that rationale to limit their aspirations.

At the time, we were planning to fence our yard. We lived on a corner lot, so we planned a chain link fence for maximum function (mainly keeping the dog in) and safety (visibility through the fence for drivers and pedestrians.) The state department of transportation already had regulations regarding setbacks for fencing on corner lots like ours, so we were prepared to keep our fence on the house side of the sidewalk, well away from the street.

Imagine our surprise when we obtained a draft of the proposed code changes and found that chain link fences would be forbidden. Forbidden for what health and safety reason? None. Forbidden because someone drafting the changes did not like the appearance of chain link in the neighborhood.

In addition, any fence along a street would not be permitted to exceed two feet in height. In what universe is a two-foot-high fence going to contain a dog? Or my young grandchildren for that matter, who frequently played in the yard. We spoke to our neighbors. No one was in agreement with these changes. We attended village council meetings. We and many of our neighbors spoke out against these clearly cosmetic changes. We did not have the votes. Our local authoritarians had decided how fencing should be installed for everyone in our village who wanted to fence their yard.

Fortunately, we were paying attention and we had the means to install our chain link before the new codes went into effect. Our grandchildren and our pet were protected while playing in our newly fenced yard, thanks to a grandfather clause. I’m sure many of our neighbors were not so lucky. Oh, and if we ever needed to repair that fence… it would need to come into compliance with the new codes.

In December, an article from Spotlight PA, Ashad Hajela reported that the Center for Rural Pennsylvania, a group that serves the PA General Assembly, released a study finding that 89% of the state’s rural towns and villages do not have “property maintenance codes.” Here we go again, I thought when I saw that. A small group of people in Harrisburg will now tell us what’s best for us. The focus of the article was the lack of these codes, leading one perhaps to believe that the problem is that there isn’t a law. Why don’t municipalities have these codes? Not, why is rural housing deteriorating?

Reading the article, one finds the problem, identified by actual rural residents. “People in the area have a low income and don’t make enough money to maintain their property,” explained Anette Prisk, Penn Township Secretary. Compounding the problem of low income is another finding of the study: “People living in urban areas were 24% more likely to be approved for home improvement loans than rural residents.”

Low income and the inability to access home improvement loans are real problems when they keep homeowners from completing needed repairs that they want to make, to prevent the deterioration of what is likely the largest investment of their lives.

There is a larger issue at play here, though. Who should make decisions about how your home looks or is maintained? Property maintenance codes enable one group to define for everyone else what maintenance is “essential” for their home, and many times to define “acceptable” appearance. Do doors need to be painted or siding replaced? How tall does fencing need to be and what type of fencing can be installed?

My husband and I now live in a rural community. One that does not have property maintenance codes. After our experience with the fence issue, we looked for a community to settle in that rejected these infringements on our individual liberties and we found one. We don’t need a law (or code) to tell us that a broken window should be fixed and punishing us with a fine we can’t afford when we already can’t afford to fix the window. We don’t need a law to tell us how high our grass should be, that we can’t let our yard grow naturally to support bees, that we need to fill the potholes in our driveway or what color we can paint our house.

Unfortunately, some people feel the need to dictate to their neighbors, despite the fact that their own rights are unaffected. It used to be that if you chose to live in a community with condo or homeowners’ association you would expect some local authoritarians to emerge. Now it seems they are everywhere.

As evidence, see this outraged post by a Jim Thorpe, PA council member regarding proposed zoning changes. Tucked in amongst the various codes, this council member discovered language that would “ban unrelated roommates” and limit who can live together to “functional families.”

While these codes are common in college communities to limit the number of students living in a single-family dwelling, the practice has spread, over time, beyond college towns to cities, suburbs and is encroaching on rural areas. A boon to local authoritarians!

Why do so many municipalities find it necessary to dictate who can live with whom? Setting aside serious concerns of encroachment on individual liberty, consider the implications. People who help friends and neighbors in their time of need, individuals in need of roommates to help pay the rent or mortgage, people who simply choose to live together, can easily run afoul of these ordinances. Who is the town council to say who can or should live together?

A report from the American Enterprise Institute revealed that these restrictions exist in various forms all over the country. There is wide variety in the number of non-relatives permitted to live together as well as in who is considered “family.” In Las Vegas no more than four unrelated people can live together, in Pittsburgh and St. Louis the limit is three.

Despots in Home Owners’ Associations (HOA) can, and often do, impose their own regulations. For example, Dallas, TX has no codes limiting who can live together, yet, the Chase Oaks HOA in suburban Plano dictates that each residence “may be occupied by one family related by blood, adoption or marriage or no more than two unrelated persons living and cooking together as a single housekeeping unit, together with any household servants.”

Just because other areas have these codes doesn’t mean they are needed or that they should spread. In fact, in Philadelphia, these codes are often ignored. No one is damaged by these code-breakers recklessly living together.

Sadly, this “I know what’s best for you” idea, combined with the ability to wield authority over others, often tempts people to run for local office. County commissioner, township supervisor, school board or homeowners’ association board members have power at the local level. These people then move along a career path that sometimes leads them to the halls of Congress.

We need to stand up to local political abuse when we detect it. Requiring home maintenance, limiting co-habitation and restricting rights on a small scale may seem less important than issues on a national level. But these seemingly small incursions against freedom can have outsized effects on our lives.

Reforming Congress starts with reforming our local authoritarians.

Freedom starts at home.