I am disappointed with the low caliber of response to my letter in last week's Citizen from Steve Fodor. I neither intended it to be funny or about annexation of the West Village (which I have no association with and could not care less about).

I was referring to the big picture facing our nation and world in the coming decades, the inequity of unjust laws or policies which deprive owners of the value of their private property without fair compensation, and the effect that unchecked government regulation and the meddling of our fellow citizens can have on our personal liberty. Please consider the following points, Mr. Fodor, and try to understand them if you can:

1. Unchecked, the world's and our nation's population will climb greatly during the next 100 years. It is logical assumption that 350 million Americans will not fit into our nation's present housing stock, which was built for 270 million. It is a fact that the construction labor pool and production infrastructure can not produce homes for 80 million people instantaneously. The construction industry must work continuously over the next several decades to increase the housing stock if we are to keep up with demand. If we do not, inflation and other negative consequences due to scarcity could arise.

The alternative is to convince the people of the world to reproduce at a slower rate. Contrary to Mr. Fodor's insinuation, I do not favor radical policies, such as a China-style population control law or turning the excess population into Soylent Green (that was a joke, Mr. Fodor). I merely meant that our government should not subsidize families (actually, it should not subsidize anything). Other than offering schooling, the government should be strictly neutral on the issue. Hopefully, one day, simple peer pressure will discourage large families in the same way that it has reduced smoking.

2. Countries are sovereign entities which can control their borders; counties are not. The present use of back-door methods of local population control such as the present misuse of zoning regulation to keep others out of our county will not stand up to court challenges as you will see in the coming years. If newcomers to a local area cause the need for more infrastructure then impact fees may lawfully be applied to the cost of the new homes to defray the expenses. But a county cannot make laws to expressly restrict immigration that will stand up to constitutional scrutiny.

3. The U.S. Constitution's Bill of Rights expressly forbids the confiscation of personal property by the government without fair compensation. If a body of government restricts the use of one's private property for its highest and best use without a compelling, logical, and fair reason, the value of the property will decrease. Fire safety or septic requirements are examples of compelling reasons to restrict construction or density in an area; Mr. Fodor's desire to “pull up the ladder” and freeze Peachtree City in time is not.

This decrease in property value, under our highest law, must be compensated for. In short, Mr. Fodor, if you have a house on your lot, you can not lawfully stop me from building a house on my lot. The very existence of your house and thousands of others in the county proves the point that building houses on lots in Fayette county is a lawful and largely safe activity. What goes for you, goes for everyone else. Or are you special? I don't think so. If you want to personally control the use of land, Mr. Fodor, you have to buy it.

4. Two of the most important functions of the U.S. Constitution are the restriction of excessive and oppressive government and the protection of a minority (and I do not mean this in the racial sense of the word) from the unjust will of the majority. How would you feel, Mr. Fodor, if your neighbors who all had swimming pools in their back yards decided to oppose your having a pool based on the grounds that your pool would use up the water supply or that your pool would ruin their view, and they misused local government to enforce their wishes? Would you not want protection from such hypocrites? The Constitution offers that protection. You don't want to mess with that protection, Mr. Fodor.

5. As a libertarian-leaning person, I believe that we should all have the right to engage in any activity that we wish provided that the activity does not deprive others of their life or property. It is a simple philosophy that stands to reason, is fair, and allows for maximum freedom. I wish others would consider its merits.

In summary, we all need to see the big picture, protect each other's rights as we would our own, and support liberty.

William M. Gilmer
wmgilmer@mindspring.com

Back to Opinion Home Page | Back to the top of the page