Business Property Owners Lose More Ground

The Indiana legislature has ended its' short session so the members can go campaign for re-election in November. The one item that struck me more than any other points to the further assertion of government that business property owners will continue to have less and less to say about what goes on on their land, and that those who show up on it will have increasingly more the say.

This trend started in great earnest with the discussion of smoking bans on business property. Governments at all levels are increasingly saying that business owners cannot set policy on their property, because even though private property, they are places of public accommodation.

So, it certainly does follow that the Indiana legislature approved a law permitting employees to bring guns onto business property, regardless of whether the business owner approves. From the Indy Star:

The legislature passed House Enrolled Act 1065, which lets most employees take their guns with them as they drive to work and park in a company-owned lot, as long as the weapons stay out of sight in a locked vehicle. And it passed House Enrolled Act 1068, already signed into law by Daniels, that will keep gun permit information secret.

The losers here? The media and businesses.

Business groups argue that companies should be able to set their own policies on handguns to safeguard their property and employees. They point to workplace incidents where disgruntled employees have retrieved a weapon from their cars and opened fire.

The Star got it right on business as loser here. I'm all for the right to self-defense and the right to bear arms. However, the rights or property come first for me. If I don't want your gun on my property, that should be my call. Alas, in today's America, if you own business property, you can go to hell. Someone else gets primacy on what is now only nominally 'your land'.

Update: One day, I'll learn never to use my Mac for these posts. It's not really the fault of the Mac so much as Blogger. If I cut something from a source when using the Mac, Blogger preserves the font type and size. try to make it uniform? Forget it. Blogger freaks out and makes it worse. Doing the same operation on the PC leaves everything uniform. I like uniformity.

Smoking, Again

It appears that Indiana is poised to consider a statewide ban on smoking in places of public accommodation. No sir, I don't like it.

I don't smoke. Never have. I detest the smell of tobacco smoke. What I do like are property rights.

There's no doubt that smoking can kill you, and that secondhand smoke can also kill you. I'm not advocating smoking or hanging around in smoky bars. But people engage in this behavior, using a legal product, for a variety of reasons, none of which especially needs to be justified to me.

I trust business owners to set their own policies. Some restaurant owners long ago set smoke-free policies as a matter of their business plan, hoping to attract a clientele that prefers a smoke-free atmosphere. But there is clearly also a market for restaurants that permit a post-meal smoke. If the owner permits it, and you chose to walk in, who is harmed?

Some say that the people who work there are harmed. Sure they are, if they choose to work in a smoky environment. Who is taking what gun and pointing it to their heads, forcing them to be there? But, it's their job!

Well, no. It isn't their job. The job, like the building, belong to the employer. The employee is one who agrees to be there, on an agreed-to set of terms. Now, there may be some stupid employees out there, who didn't bother to discuss the terms, or who were somehow non-observant of the conditions of the workplace when they accepted the job of their own volition.

If the employer permits smoking by employees, the smoker isn't 'intervening' into the non-smoker's space. He is smoking in the space provided by the employer. The life, liberty of the property owner comes before the non-property owner who is invited into the building. It's the primacy of the property owner over the visitor that is important.

Consider your home for a minute. Would you not consider it absurd to invite guests over and then have them determine the policies of your home? So, why is a place of business any different?

America is really losing its' way with regards to freedom, and understanding freedom. When anybody but the property owner can dictate the policies affecting that property, there is no freedom, but fascism.

But, since it's clear that there are health risks associated with the use of tobacco, it seems prudent for those offering smoking policies to warn their potential guests. We have warning labels on cigarette packages. There is no reason why we can't have the smoking policy of various establishments clearly posted at all entrances so that informed choices can be made. This way, those who hate smoke, like me, can figure out if we want to enter or not. those who smoke can go where they want to as well.

Seems like a nice, King Solomon compromise solution- One that respects freedom.

Zoning And God

(Fishers, IN)- I grew up in Parma, Ohio- a town largely built in the post-WW2 boom, when GIs returned home and so many took the opportunity the flee the old cities and get into a new, safer, cleaner suburban community. Parma once held the claim to fame as the world's largest suburb.

There were many churches in my neighborhood, but besides the one I attended, the one that sticks out in my mind was St. Josaphat's Ukranian Church.

It's now known as the Ukranian Catholic Eparchy of Saint Josaphat. Essentially, it is a cathedral, with a Pope-appointed Bishop seated there.

St. Josaphat's Cathedral, Parma OH.

Needless to say, it's a crown jewel of the now-aging neighborhood- a thing of beauty that holds tremendous value (aesthetically, spirtually, monetarily) even as the surrounding area deteriorates a bit. It's bedrock for the community.

So it's interesting to me that my new hometown of Fishers is having a zoning debate over the height of a church. From an Indy Star report:

St. George Orthodox Church is moving from its longtime home on North Sherman Street in Indianapolis to 116th Street and Cumberland Road. The church plans to build a sanctuary more than five stories high but needs the town to make an exception to its zoning code to do so.

More than 20 homeowners who live near the church have told the town they oppose St. George's building plan. They say the size would dwarf the single-family homes in the area and disrupt the residential character of the neighborhood.

This is short-sighted on the part of the homeowners, at least if they plan on living in the community for more than three years. Back in Parma, St. Josaphat's dwarfs everything around it- until you go two blocks south and encounter my old church- St. Francis de Sales. Catch the thing I said about the bedrock of the community? Fishers is largely brand new today, just as Parma was in 1948. Fishers will deteriorate, just as surely as Parma has. Churches that are well-supported, however, are well maintained, and later serve to hold the rest of the community up as the deterioration begins around it. Why wouldn't you want that? More from the Star:

(Bob) Kehlor sees more than aesthetics involved in opposition -- it's a matter of principle.

"I asked for small variance for my property to build a driveway, and the town wouldn't let me do it,' he said. "That was nothing compared to what they want to do. The town should stick to its code, otherwise why even have it."

I can understand his very legitimate gripe. Why should one property owner be restricted while another can have the rules bent? Mr. Kehlor supplies the answer- get rid of the zoning.

As long as there is zoning, there will also be zoning appeals, and therefore variances. And, so long as variances are granted to some and not to others, the accusations of favoritism and unfair dealings will be there and will be legitimized. Zoning does unfairly punish individual property owners, who lack the kind of numbers a church can present- in terms of members-as-lobbyists, and cash for variance fees. Zoning's intent is to protect one property owner from the destructive actions of another. I doubt Kehlor's driveway would have been injurious to his neighbor. I can assure anyone that having a more grand church isn't going to injure anyone either. Quite the contrary. The problem is an overreaching government, that is well-exposed by this example.

If the Church owns the land, the Town shouldn't be able to play Land God over it, any more than it should have over Mr. Kehlor.

The old argument against zoning-free communities is that, "a hog farm could spring up next to you". In case you hadn't noticed, the hog farms in Fishers are long gone. They sold out to developers, because the land was far less valuable as a hog farm. That argument is bunk.

At the end of the day, I think that if this was a building that added assessed value to the Town, there would be no discussion. The variance would be granted- post haste. But, it will add a very different set of values to the Town, but also including property values for the neighborhood that surrounds it. Approve the darned thing!