Nineteen Austin property owners have filed suit against the city. They claim that efforts to revise the city’s zoning ordinance have violated state law requiring the city to inform property owners of zoning changes and consider their protests against such changes.
According to KVUE in Austin:
Through the lawsuit, the residents are seeking that the City of Austin send out notices in regard to the revised LDC and an injunction against the City for continuously violating resident’s rights by prohibiting protesting.
In other words, the property owners are primarily concerned about the fact that they can’t protest the city’s dictatorial powers over land use. But this is the wrong issue to be raising. It amounts to tilting at windmills.
Let us assume that the property owners win their lawsuit and are allowed to protest the revised ordinance. City council could still pass the ordinance, and the protests would have accomplished nothing more than waste a lot of time and money. The lawsuit would have done nothing to address the real issue: the city’s dictatorial powers over land use.
Certainly, the property owners should be fighting for their freedom to protest the actions of their government. But more fundamentally, they should be fighting for their freedom to use their property as they choose. Those who are party to the lawsuit aren’t doing this. They aren’t challenging zoning, but merely the details of this particular zoning ordinance.
One of the plaintiffs said, “I’m suing to prevent my home from being up-zoned against my wishes.” He isn’t opposed to the city dictating property use. He is only opposes the city dictating property uses that he doesn’t like. In doing so, he accepts the moral premise underlying zoning.
The plaintiffs may win this battle. But unless they challenge the morality of zoning, they will lose the war.