 |
 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Imagine being thrown in jail for failing to move some trees. No, this scenario is not some fever-dream of a master satirist. Such is the situation faced by John Thoburn in Fairfax County, Virginia. In a story reported by David Shuster for Fox News, the logical results of zoning laws and the assault on private property rights they represent is demonstrated in full clarity.
Thoburn has been sharing jail space with real criminals now for over a month. An owner of a golf-range, he refused to shift thirty of seven-hundred trees the county zoning board forced him to plant. Bad enough that he was forced to pay $125,000 for the original mandate. Now the zoning officials want to add insult to injury by commanding him to spend even more.
Why the change in landscaping? In their infinite wisdom and compassion, the members of the zoning board believed Thoburn had a duty to provide a "protective screen" between his business and a neighboring private home. At first blush, this order might appear reasonable. After all, a homeowner might prefer not having a direct view of a business establishment. (Not that such a concern would necessarily justify such a requirement absent a direct nuisance factor.)
But wait. The neighbor in question has made no complaint. So immediately we are faced with, at worst, a "consensual" or "victimless" crime. If a person does not believe his rights are being violated, then what possible cause would a government body have for intervening?
None, of course.
What makes this example even more astounding and egregious, however, is the identity of Thoburn's neighbor: His dad, Bob!
As the elder Thoburn said, "They want...my children to screen their own property from their own property. We own all the property across the street, too, every bit of it. So, it doesn't make any sense."
No, of course not. Not on any rational level. When considering the allure and corrupting nature of power, of course, the nonsense of the zoning board makes perfect sense.
The impulse towards imperious edicts and the sneering contempt for rights evident in the actions of the closet dictators who far too frequently inhabit the city, county, and state levels of our government is more typical than most of us care to admit. While many individuals most fear the State in the form of the federal government, the State's worst tyrannical incarnations can often be found in our own backyards. Local does not always mean better.
If nothing else, the Fairfax County zoning board has discovered a novel source for expanding the range of their own power. Why, if it truly is possible for us to commit crimes against ourselves and our own property, then we are all simultaneously victims and criminals, innocents and oppressors. Drink too much at home? Smoke in bed? Break a lamp in anger? Be jailed for endangering your own life and property. You deserve it!
When the State so blatantly demands that a business owner "protect" himself from his own actions as in the Thoburn situation, the ludicrousness of the orders are easily recognized. Yet, in reality, the Fairfax County zoning board has not really unearthed any new principle, at all. The bizarre inversion of law represented by the notion of "protecting us from ourselves" forms the basis for widespread interventions in our society:
If so-called victimless crimes formed the full extent of the State's protecting us from ourselves, that would be bad enough. As they say, though, we should be so lucky.
Consider these other examples in the light of the principle brought to full fruition by the Fairfax zoning gurus:
Poor John Thoburn, of course, does not fully appreciate how much his zoning overlords care for him and how it is that they merely want him to do what's right for himself and his father. I guess he might have a more convivial attitude if he wasn't locked up behind bars...
I imagine the board's directive to change the height of a hill on his property (though the board refuses to provide him any guidelines for what constitutes a "proper" height); its demand for him to use only cans and not cups for soft drinks on his land (though the county's own golf range allows them); and its stipulations on how he can use lights, a miniature golf course, and putting greens (despite the lack of any such restrictions on its own range) are also completely for Mr. Thoburn's own good. I mean, as county spokeswoman Merni Fitzgerald said, "Every case is individually studied and analyzed..." Obviously, that assurance of fairness should settle the issue. I trust that any doubts you might have been harboring regarding a possible double-standard and unfair competition are now completely and fully laid to rest.
So Thoburn remains in the hoosegow in "contempt" of court (!) while his wife vamoosed to Texas with their sons to avoid a similarly compassionate fate.
I would bet (only where legal, of course!) that the zoning board merely snickered at Thoburn's statement that, "I'm here in jail for the right to operate my business on my property. It's private property. I'm defending property rights."
"What naivete! What silliness! What blindness!" the zoning officials might declare. "Doesn't he know that 'property rights' ceased to exist in this country eons ago?"
A further irony in this sad dispute is a current media campaign the state of Virginia is running on television. Come to Virginia, they proclaim. We're a right-to-work state. [Apparently, though, only as long as you agree to work on their conditions...] We're friendly to business!
If Mr. Thoburn's case is an indication of conditions friendly to business, I'd hate to see what qualifies as a hostile climate.
What we need to keep in mind in this and similar instances is that it is not bad behavior that is being zoned out of existence; it's your freedom.
