Last October I made
passing mention of
the efforts then underway
by the City of Tucson
and Pima County to
designate “Airport
Environs Zones.”
Those are areas in
the vicinity of Davis-Monthan
Air Force Base that
are affected by the
noise from the military
aircraft using the
Base. Some comments
I’ve seen and
heard locally since
then have given me
the distinct impression
that some people believe
the City and County
can control what goes
on at the Base, or
at least can affect
where the aircraft
fly. A great opportunity,
I thought, for a primer
on zoning codes, also
known as land use
codes.
A quick government
lesson is in order
here, folks. The federal
government is superior
to the local government.
That means that the
City and County cannot
control what the Air
Force does, period.
A corollary to that
is that where aircraft
can fly is decided
by either the military
or the Federal Aviation
Administration, both
of which are agencies
of the federal government.
If you don’t
like where planes
are flying, call your
Congressperson, not
the City or the County.
As much as they may
want to, there is
nothing your City
councilperson or County
supervisor can do
to control actions
by the federal government.
The federal government,
on the other hand,
is not in the business
of local land use
regulation. Local
land use regulation
is a power delegated
to the City and County
by the State of Arizona.
That power is exercised
by all the counties
and municipalities
in Arizona through
zoning or land use
codes. This means
that if the City and
County are regulating
(or not regulating)
land use in a way
that you don’t
like, even if the
origin of those regulations
is due to the presence
of the Base, call
your City councilperson
or County supervisor,
not Washington, D.C.
The rules for land
use in the City of
Tucson are found in
the Land Use Code
of the City of Tucson.
It is 500-plus pages
long. The Pima County
Zoning Code, which
is part of the Pima
County Code, is probably
about the same length.
Each is festooned
with graphs, charts,
and similar fun stuff
showing how far your
building must be from
the front, sides and
back of your lot,
how large the floor
area of your building
can be in proportion
to the size of your
lot, and many other
things, including
some things you probably
never would have thought
to make rules about.
There are limits,
however, to what the
City and County can
control through their
land use codes. One
of the things they
cannot control is
actions by other government
agencies (with a few
exceptions). That’s
why the City can’t
control what goes
on at the Base. Like
it or not, the location
and function of military
facilities are decisions
made by the federal
government based on
national security,
not by local governments
according to their
own agendas.
As I have discussed
in this space previously,
zoning is here to
stay, and has many
beneficial effects,
but also has its limitations.
The City and County
can’t tell state
or federal agencies
what to do, but they
can, and do, extensively
regulate land use
by just about everyone
else. If you want
to know exactly what
the rules are in any
given situation, chances
are the answer is
somewhere in the land
use codes.
AN
UPDATE ON
“KILLER TREES”
A long time ago I
wrote about a community
in California that
had a civic dispute
over cutting down
a very old tree. The
tree was cut down
out of fear that it
might fall, injure
someone, and result
in the local school
district having to
pay a personal injury
settlement. The school
district was acting
in what it thought
was a fiscally responsible
manner by seeking
to remove the tree.
Some of the local
citizens thought that
it would be better
to err on the side
of saving the tree.
Now there’s
a report that there
are lawyers in California
who (at least claim
to) specialize in
suing property owners
for personal injuries
caused by falling
trees on the theory
that the property
owners have failed
to adequately maintain
the trees. Now, I
am not advocating
that local governments,
or private property
owners, should be
allowed to ignore
conditions on their
property that are
clearly dangerous
and could result in
an injury to an unsuspecting
passerby. Some dangerous
conditions, however,
are a lot easier to
recognize and remedy
than others. It’s
one thing to say that
a property owner should
be required to fence
an open pit on his
or her property. It’s
something else entirely
to say that a property
owner should make
sure that there are
no trees on his or
her property that
could fall on someone.
Don’t be surprised
if property owners,
and especially local
governments, respond
to this sort of legal
activity by deciding
it’s safer and
cheaper to just cut
down all trees that
are over a certain
age, at least in areas
where there are lots
of people around.
The tree lovers will,
of course, object
to removal of old
trees. Who wins?
