Path: utzoo!yunexus!unicus!craig
From: craig@unicus.UUCP (Craig D. Hubley)
Newsgroups: can.politics
Subject: Re: Rent control, zoning, and politics.
Message-ID: <2379@unicus.UUCP>
Date: 15 Mar 88 21:47:27 GMT
Article-I.D.: unicus.2379
Posted: Tue Mar 15 16:47:27 1988
References: <594@oscvax.UUCP> <2303@unicus.UUCP> <2399@geac.UUCP> <1988Mar14.201738.21165@lsuc.uucp>
Reply-To: craig@Unicus.COM (Craig D. Hubley)
Distribution: ont
Organization: Unicus Software Inc., Toronto, Ont.
Lines: 66

In article <1988Mar14.201738.21165@lsuc.uucp> dave@lsuc.UUCP (David Sherman) writes:
>In article <2399@geac.UUCP> daveb@geac.UUCP (David Collier-Brown) writes:
>>  Specifically, if one wants to add a deck to the roof of your
>>garage, you have to apply for an get a variance to your zoning.  
>>  This applies to almost any neighbourhood in Toronto proper, even
>>if you have the only un-decked roof in the area (say, census tract).
>>
>>  This is a **wonderfull** incentive to those who are into
>>soliciting bribes: getting a variance can take weeks or years,
>>depending on lord-knows-what.
>
>Are you saying that bribery goes on in the Toronto municipal
>government, or merely that the system, as constituted, might
>permit it?  (I'm referring to illegal bribery, not tradeoffs
>between builders and the city that are agreed to and that
>are for the city's benefit.)

I'll let Dave speak for himself, but since the system provides
no rational criterion for such `variances' and since exceptions
are common, and since legislators are human, and since very little is
excluded from their jurisdiction, I think the system not only permits but
*encourages* these illegal activities.  Lack of rationality in law
leads to lack of respect for law, and rightfully so.

As to the more sophisticated bribery/coercion that goes on between 
builders and the city, `for the city's benefit':  Either the things
that are `forbidden' are genuinely bad, and thus should not be excepted,
such as toxic waste dumps next to farms, or they are simply `bargaining
tools' to be used to coerce builders into doing what politicians want done,
based on arbitrary measurements that change every few years.  Contributions
to municipal politicians' war chests are only part of the transaction.

I'll be the first to admit that urban planning is not an exact science,
but using loophole-wracked regulations `for the city's benefit' is.
Builders who seek exception to these rules pay out tremendous amounts
of money to lawyers and lobbyists, arguing their case.  This lets out
the little guys right away, unless its something trivial.  Furthermore,
the lobbying situation itself requires legislation, including conflict
of interest and the like.  The end result of all this is to remove the
decision-making power from the law, where it is at least stable and based
on precedent and on judges, and give it to the politicians.  It certainly
does not end up in the hands of qualified urban planners, whose definition
of `for the city's benefit', might actually be objective at least.

There is simply no exclusion of dishonesty where there is no definition
of honesty.  And Toronto is such a place, when it comes to zoning laws.
Legality is a side issue.  Whether or not a particular tactic is legal
changes day to day, as the regulations get more complex.  Eventually,
as I think is the case now, the regulations change faster than legal
precedents can be set.  This is a classic 20th-century problem, but the
classic 20th-century solution:  omnipotent bureacrats who are above reproach,
is not acceptable to a society that wants the common man to have rights
before the law.

The massive tome that is Toronto's zoning law is not law at all.  Lawyers
don't debate it, lobbyists do.

>David Sherman

If anyone can come up with a rational justification for the `variance' that
Dave C-B mentions above, I'd love to hear it.  Until then, this stinks.

	Craig Hubley, Unicus Corporation, Toronto, Ont.
	craig@Unicus.COM				(Internet)
	{uunet!mnetor, utzoo!utcsri}!unicus!craig	(dumb uucp)
	mnetor!unicus!craig@uunet.uu.net		(dumb arpa)