After last weekend’s public meetings, it’s pretty safe to predict that efforts to develop zoning regulations for rural areas of Pike County won’t make much progress.
It is true that meetings on a topic like this tend to attract people who are opposed to the idea. But the two stories we ran in last Wednesday’s paper made it clear that there is significant opposition to the idea of rural zoning.
Even more important, proceeding with zoning discussions does not even have the support of a majority of Pike County supervisors.
Three of them, Lee Fortenberry, Jake Gazzo and Sam Hall, consistently have opposed the idea. Only Robert Accardo and Justin Loftin are in favor. And it doesn’t sound like any of those five opinions will change any time soon.
As for other opinions, a completely unscientific poll has been active since July 11 on the Enterprise-Journal. It asked respondents what they thought about the rural zoning proposal, with two “for it” answers and two “against it.”
Through Friday afternoon, the results weren’t even close. With a total of 236 votes cast, “Against it” leads by a 3-to-1 margin.
The choice that said, “No government should tell people what they can and cannot do with their land. End of story,” got more than half of all the votes, 162 of the 236. The other “against” option, with 29 votes, noted that Houston, Texas doesn’t have zoning regulations.
The two “for it” choices fared poorly. Protecting property values from inappropriate development nearby got 46 votes, while “zoning is a map for the future” got 14.
Again, it was a completely random poll. There’s no way to know how many of the voters even live in Pike County. But the results do say something.
I live in McComb, which does have zoning regulations, so I don’t have a property interest in this debate. But I can make a case where zoning would benefit Pike County, with the exception of any landowners who want to put up something that's going to annoy their neighbors.
People at the meetings kept saying they should be able to decide how to use their land. Any rational person agrees with that; the problem is when somebody who’s completely irrational buys property that adjoins yours.
For example, there are a lot more rural subdivisions in Pike County than there used to be. People bought or built houses in the country to have more space, more land and a reasonable expectation of peace and quiet. What happens if land on one side of the subdivision gets sold so somebody can open a scrap-metal operation or a lounge?
Properly designed zoning regulations that say, this area is for single homes, that area is for mobile homes, and a third area is for business, would minimize or eliminate such difficult situations.
I think this came up at one of the meetings: A zoning advocate noted that people objecting to the proposal also have complained about the possibility of a solar farm being built in a certain area of Pike County. They don’t want it near their land or their homes.
Well, duh. Without zoning regulations, you are powerless to object to developments like that. If you can do as you wish with your land, so can the owner of other property.
Zoning really is more about protecting your property by designating, and limiting, how nearby property can be used.
All that said, I understand residents’ objections. Zoning advocates say we need to prepare for growth in Pike County. It’s not too hard to reply that we’ve been waiting for growth for many decades now, with not nearly as much success as everyone would like. So maybe we’re too far ahead of the growth curve when we talk about zoning.
It may be that zoning is something worth considering one day. But right now it appears to be an idea whose time has not yet arrived.
