November City Council Message
By: William Neihaus, Contact this Councilmember
Return to City Council Listing
In the October issue of the Montgomery Bulletin, Todd Steinbrink addressed how Council and its various boards and commissions deal with the many issues and ideas generated within our city. One of the more important issues considered by our commissions and City Council consistently concerns land usage-zoning. We deal with this issue not only in deciding to zone or rezone property, but in updating our Zoning Code, approving development plans, and periodically updating our Comprehensive Community Plan. The Comprehensive Community Plan is the foundation upon which the Zoning Code and ultimately administrative approval are built. We currently are in the process of reviewing that Comprehensive Community Plan to determine where we are and where we should be in the future.
When someone acquires ownership in property in Montgomery, it is zoned for some type of residential or commercial use. With that zoning comes certain freedoms as well as constraints on its use. These zoning rules are intended to balance the owner’s rights to use the property while not intruding on the rights of adjoining property owners or the entire community.
The foundation for zoning are the goals and objectives set forth in the Comprehensive Community Plan. It is based upon that Plan that the Code of Ordinances, specifically applicable land usage, is built. Past and present City Councils have always kept the owner’s property rights in mind when making changes. That is, protecting each individual’s property rights to the extent possible with the fewest constraints that are feasible and still have a viable community. This balancing act is often very difficult. If zoning strictly was an act in exercising our democratic rights, then the will of the entire community would dictate how an individual property owner can or cannot exercise his property rights. The difficulty in this situation is that if the community does not like the property owner they may constrain his rights. Instead of using this town meeting approach, we are required constitutionally to identify the community interest we are trying to advance with the zoning rule or limit that rule so as not to unreasonably constrain the individual property owner’s rights.
The recent Norwood case is the best example of this balancing act. We read repeatedly that the citizens of Norwood wanted and needed the new Rookwood development. If there simply was a matter of tallying the votes, Norwood would have won and the property would have been taken. Instead, the court recognized the right of each individual property owner to hold his property without unreasonable government interference. This same rule applies in zoning cases. Central to any zoning decision is the individual property owner’s rights to use his or her property as he deems best balanced against the community’s interest to have the property benefit everyone.
I am reminded of something I once read in a book on this subject that has made a lasting impression upon me. It concerns a relationship between a city government, its residents and all property owners within that city. I quote:
“That the whole should protect all its parts, and that every part should pay obedience to the will of the whole; or in other words, that the community should guard the rights of each individual member, and that in return for this protection, each individual should submit to the laws of the community; without which submission of all it is impossible that protection can be extended to any.” That is, respecting the rights of others will help others respect your rights.
The best thing Council can do for the City of Montgomery and its property owners is to maintain the integrity of the Charter, the Comprehensive Plan, and the resulting Code of Ordinances as formalized by the present and past administrations. Only then can Montgomery continue to exist as it is now.
When my wife Marian and I moved to Montgomery in 1964, it was a sleepy little town with many open spaces, a movie drive-in, two golf courses and far fewer subdivisions. Each time Montgomery would change we would say, “We don’t need that – there goes the neighborhood.” I can only say, “I am pleased today with where the neighborhood has gone – the people keep coming.” We were at first opposed to change, but now I see those changes and I am pleased. We have watched Montgomery change and grow. We have seen people come and go. We have watched many of you come to the city and enjoy this fine city as my family has enjoyed this fine city. Change can be frightening, but at times we need to embrace change. With that said, please come to public meetings. It is the best way for Montgomery to grow and the best way for us to discuss change, review change, and, if necessary, embrace change.