The Tyranny Of Individualism As Destroyer Of Communities And Wild Places

The half-acre I have in mind currently sits behind a For Sale banner hung on a chain link fence in downtown Gardiner. It faces southward across the northern boundary of Yellowstone National Park. Millions of visitors pass by every year.

One also wonders about the appearance of what will be built. Robert Reamer Avenue is at the far end of the block. Will whoever builds here honor the street's namesake—the designer of the Old Faithful Inn’s architectural legacy? The person who built the long-gone Canyon Hotel? Or will we see an efficient cube of glass (the views!) and steel with token timber and stone trim?

The State of Montana says that the current market value of this site is just over $302,000. Some of you may be as startled by that understatement as I am. But taking it as a starting place makes the speculative value, or what land economists call the unearned “rent” that is created by you and I as potential customers, park visitors, and taxpayers at least $5 million. How much of that value will accrue to the people who create it? Any?

Well, the developer will have to build sidewalks we may use. But since we must be able to walk through the door to check in or buy something, is that really for public benefit? Perhaps the marketing budget will at least include some interesting public art.

But will the volunteers of Gateway Hose Company #1 get equipment commensurate with the impact of a tall new building to fight a new structure fire if one should erupt? How about a new aerial platform? A used one will cost $200,000 or more. Will water mains be enlarged if necessary if fire spreads to a larger building? Will the developer spend the millions required to add a turn lane or signal to the intersection of US 89 and Park Street if that is called for? No one knows.

What we do know is that the citizens of Gardiner and Park County, Montana have chosen to have next to no say in the development of this parcel despite its indisputable impact on the community, the oldest national park in the world, and millions of visitors. We also know that this is a conscious choice; Montana communities have been enabled to plan and adopt land use regulations for decades. 

The listing agent says that buying this parcel would be, “A truly once in a lifetime opportunity.” That is true. But making sure that development here takes the public interest into account will apparently be a once in a lifetime opportunity foregone. Why have the people of Gardiner and Park County put themselves in this position? 

The Myth of Domination has told them (tries to tell us all) to relax. You do your thing. I do mine. The Invisible Hand of free-market capitalism will sort it out. That someone can raise the millions required to acquire and develop this parcel, while others will never be able to afford a room there is irrelevant. All that is required is that our individual actions be as free as possible from governmental constraint. 

But how free are people who have nothing to say about a critical development in the future of their community? How free are people whose tax bills and enjoyment of their own property will be impacted by decisions in which they have taken no voice and on which there are no enforceable constraints?

For me, standing beside that banner in Gardiner a few weeks ago summed up 50 years of watching how the Myth of Domination plays out. The hand may be invisible, but the impacts of its machinations are hard to miss.

And yet we don’t see. Gardiner is not the only place in Greater Yellowstone—or beyond—where the ownership of critical resources allows a tiny number of individuals (almost always individuals hiding from personal liability behind a corporate shield) to determine how entire communities and landscapes will function far into the future. 

The popular understanding of freedom that leads people to abandon responsibility for land use decisions is camouflage for domination or to use a term the Founding Fathers liked; tyranny. 

It is not the tyranny that sparked the American Revolution. Domination was acted out through monarchs (oh, and I should add, popes) for a few millennia, but that was ineffective. People kept rebelling against the visible tyranny of one person or a ruling class.

And so, like an organism gradually developing colors that would hide it from predators, those invested in the Myth of Domination evolved the notion of individualism; the comforting belief that pursuing our own interests will result in a wonderful world for everyone. Their philosophers who advanced this notion wrote a permission slip for us all to be tyrants. Later on, debates about capitalism versus socialism were added to further misdirect us. The “ism"  that counts is the individualism that underlies both conceptions of how society ought to be organized. Individualism is the ideology that accounts for our inability to address big issues, including the health of Greater Yellowstone.

The Gardiner example helps us understand the future of conservation in Greater Yellowstone because it does not require regulating land that potentially should not be developed. Here, we have a parcel where intensive development can be beneficial to both the owner and the community. The phantom of the “taking issue” that haunts so many rural land use discussions need not appear. But are we even able to answer the truly practical questions this development raises?

Will whoever seeks to profit from development of this parcel be held responsible to pay for the necessary infrastructure? (Water, sewer, roads, police, fire protection, etc).

Will the project be subject to guidelines that require a building design consistent with this once-in-a-lifetime location right on the doorstep of our first national park? 

Will the developer provide employee housing commensurate with the number of jobs created, not necessarily on this parcel (which we might agree is not the best place for that), but within walking distance?

These questions (and others) should be answered with both public involvement and respect for the developers’ investment in a permitting process set up by reasonable land use regulations. But barring swift action by the Park County Commissioners, they will not. And, unfortunately, they aren't being answered with hundreds of other development projects happening in communities throughout Greater Yellowstone.

Even in this case, where there could so easily be a constructive conversation between the community and the developer, the people of Gardiner and Park County will have no choice but to accept whatever arrangements are made for them by The Invisible Hand. 

They are not alone. The Invisible Hand makes critical land use decisions throughout the Montana part of Greater Yellowstone. Even the epicenter of growth, Gallatin County (though it does have a host of uncoordinated district zoning regulations) would have nothing to say about the development of a similar site in Gallatin Gateway—an unincorporated place that at least once bore some resemblance to Gardiner.

The situation is a bit different in Idaho and Wyoming. Greater Yellowstone counties in those states have land use permitting processes in which the infrastructure issues and the scale of the proposed building (though not necessarily its design) would at least be addressed in a public forum. Employee housing would surely come up, too, but there are no requirements for its provision.

Local implementation can be inconsistent even where regulations exist. Teton County, Wyoming, where millions of dollars have been spent on a string of new plans and regulations during the last 50 years, still struggles to address the issues raised by development everyone knows is already underway or coming. 

A major subdivision was recently moved forward before it was clear that the infrastructure needed to protect water quality would be available. Utilities apparently will be installed, but an identical project—expensive houses on uniform lots—could as easily be found on the outskirts of, say, Wichita, Kansas. The sketch plan reflects nothing of what is spectacular about Jackson Hole.  

If the incomplete patchwork of plans and regulations in Greater Yellowstone is not effectively asserting basic public interests, like the provision of infrastructure, on lands where intensive development is desirable, how can it preserve community character, housing opportunities for everyone, or the wildlife habitat that is the heart of Greater Yellowstone? 

Answer: It cannot. 

To reiterate, the constraint on local land use decisions in Greater Yellowstone (and rural landscapes almost everywhere else in the US) is the same as the constraint on "collaborative conservation" that I explained earlier in Mountain Journal.  Local planning, however much goodwill it reflects, can be successful only within the space left over by the Myth of Domination. 

I am not happy saying this. I put much of a career into planning with communities in Greater Yellowstone. Whether I helped lead the way or not, a few counties in the region do make the protection of water quality and wildlife habitat considerations in their land-use decisions. They too often do so in language that is too vague to withstand a challenge, but there are sometimes usefully specific standards. As in the world of collaborative conservation, good things can and do happen. But they do not happen often enough, consistently enough, or with the energy needed to sustain this landscape.

It should also be noted that when local governments try to address collective issues, state legislatures are willing to intervene on behalf of the dominant narrative. Montana lawmakers recently stripped local governments of the power to promote workforce housing through inclusionary zoning. The Wyoming and Idaho legislatures don’t hesitate to overrule home rule either. Read about a local ranch family in Jackson Hole that went to the state legislature in Cheyenne seeking help to prevent the town of Jackson from tying water and sewer hookup to developers agreeing to provide affordable housing in a new subdivision.

The people of Greater Yellowstone have been living out an illusory story about freedom. As another friend, Sam Western, wrote in a recent article about the political history of the Greater Yellowstone states and some of their neighbors: Whoever packaged loyalty and obedience and sold it as freedom may be a marketing genius, but it is authoritarianism in disguise.

The tyranny of individualism can be marketed so successfully because it appeals to our egos. We are seduced even when it is clear that some of us benefit far more than others from living this story. We go along even when it is clear that we are depriving ourselves of significant choices about how we might live well together. 

We require a different myth. We need a story that unifies us in gratitude, humility, restraint, and reciprocity, a story our that engages our love of the places we live and our willingness to work hard. Give us that new myth and we’ll show that we can grow better communities, that we can protect and restore the incredible landscapes that remain.

How do we get a new story? There are suggestions in my earlier essays that need not be repeated. Here I want to point out one specific—and dramatic—step that could be taken.

The Park County Commissioners could become living legends. They could—promptly, before there is a development proposal—adopt progressive land use regulations for Gardiner. Some citizens in Gardiner are organizing a planning effort that could be radically accelerated. Doing that with the necessary rapidity will lead to some dreadfully unpleasant public hearings. The dominant narrative will try to preserve itself, and its adherents often take the low road. But how often does anyone have the chance to write the prologue to a new myth? 

If a less heroic local response continues to be that accepting the tyranny of the dominant narrative is more comfortable, what then? We can live with whatever happens on that lot in Gardiner. We’ll get together and have a beer in the rooftop bar (developers are you listening?) that gets built there. 

We will also have even less belief in the efficacy of local governance. That’s not good. We need effective local government more than ever. But perhaps, just maybe, the tyranny of the dominant narrative will become more visible to more of us, more vulnerable. Maybe we’ll see that “Freedom’s not just another word for nothing left to lose.”

Folks, it is time to adopt a new myth that is rooted in gratitude for what we have left to lose. It is time to craft a new narrative of humility and restraint that takes the choices about the kind of places we want to live away from The Invisible Hand and returns those choices to us. Given that new story, the regional effort my friends call for and much more—see my proposals from this spring—will follow.

In a land where the precise use of language has been abandoned by most, I feel I need to remind everyone that there is a difference between individualism, which is an ideology, a system of belief, and individuality, which is just the inevitable result of being human. Changing our shared narrative away from individualism doesn’t mean you can’t have purple hair, be a vegan, or be a hunter. 

In fact, if you think about it, the adherents of the Myth of Domination also tend to be those who would like us all to look and act like them? And if we think about the amazing art, the artfulness in daily life, that was expressed in societies that lived a different narrative (take a walk through the Plains Indian Museum in Cody while you’re thinking about this), I think we can be reassured that our ability to express ourselves, our individuality, will only expand if we adopt a new myth. 

It is important for readers to understand that developers do not create land values. They capture them. 

Whoever builds on this corner lot in Gardiner will create value. If the usual ratios hold, the new building (it could be multiple structures, though I doubt it) will have to be worth at least $20 million to get financing. 

But the value of land has little to do with a developer’s efforts. Move this lot, which is currently just a patch of reasonably level fill with no productive value (no crops, no timber, no habitat), a couple of blocks off US 89 and its value falls. Move it to, say, Basin, Wyoming and the value mostly disappears. 

The value of a location is created by its context.

Part of that context is physical. A building site served by water and sewer mains is generally more valuable than one that isn’t. A parcel with fabulous views is usually more valuable than one that is equal in every other way (size, soil, accessibility, etc.).

Part of what creates value in land is social. Identical homes in different school districts may sell for very different prices. A high-traffic location like the one considered in this essay is more valuable, at least for commercial use, than one that few potential customers pass by. 

Our current system of land tenure allows an owner to benefit from value that he or she does not create. Landowners capture value that is created by other people in their roles as tax or utility rate payers, or as potential customers. 

As I pointed out in my last Mountain Journal essay, recapturing that value (while the developer earns, at least hopefully earns, a fair return on her or his investment in the building) would shift the dynamics of development in favor of habitat conservation and affordable housing, in favor of community stability rather than speculation.

EDITOR'S NOTE: MoJo received reader comments below. Also, for your reading, here are three other essays, below, by longtime professional planner Lee Nellis who worked in several communities throughout Greater Yellowstone and the Northern Rockies. What do you think of this essay? Write to us and let us share your comments.

Hello, I'm writing in response to the essay by Lee Nellis in which he writes that "opposition to planning and zoning around Yellowstone destroying character of towns and nature." I work as a planner in the area and wanted to point out a few areas of "planning" that tend to be overlooked. I've read countless articles over the years about planning, or a lack-there-of and the need for "action" by communities and local governments. I would love to see a more in-depth look at how/what the State of Montana provides local governments to address land-use issues (think of it as a tool box). I don't think many understand just how limited local governments are at addressing growth and planning related issues, and it isn't always because of a lack of courage or political will, which is often portrayed in articles and discussions around land-use issues. I know firsthand just how complex and difficult it can be for a local government to address land-use issues, and I also know just how much the State of Montana tries to limit the ability of a local government (especially counties) to address planning related issues. And yet, the narrative continues to focus on the need for communities to do something before it's too late, and for counties to have the courage and political will to adopt comprehensive land-use regulations to address the ongoing issues, while  

What is rarely discussed, or examined, is the ongoing effort of the Montana Legislature to strip all local authority away and undermine the very few "tools" left for local governments to utilize. In addition, I rarely see any examination of the funding model for local governments (outside of incorporated areas) and how this drastically impacts the ability of local governments to provide the resources needed to address the needs of local communities. New regulations, added administration and enforcement, all require additional resources (funding) which is often not an option given the inability to raise taxes. I appreciate your interest and writing about land-use issues in Montana--and would be happy to discuss planning efforts at the local level if you're interested.

Lee Nellis responds: 

Thanks for writing Mike. I will remind you that the article quite specifically, albeit briefly, states that the state legislatures, and not just in Montana, have been taking away local powers. You are correct to say that this issue isn't widely discussed, but I did.

The failures of the legislature do not change the fact that an incorporated Gardiner could have a great deal to say about property development both through the land use regulations it would still be enabled to adopt and its other powers as a municipality. Park County does not have quite the same scope of action as a city, but Montana law has not yet changed in a way that would stop the county from making sure that the public interest is represented in land use decisions.

As for the costs of doing so, the county still has the power to charge reasonable fees and building on that vacant lot is going to add in some measure to the county's revenues. There are indeed limitations on how counties raise revenues, but there are far fewer limitations on how they prioritize expenditures. I will also point out that some share of the county's fiscal challenges are due to its long time failure to rein in rural sprawl.

I have worked with small rural communities throughout the US for decades and those who want to have a proactive voice in their future find ways to do so.  I wish you well in your efforts in Park County. But letting the County off the hook because the legislature is dysfunctional would benefit no one. 

Mike Inman responds to Nellis:

I really appreciate your response back, and so quickly! I by no means meant to imply Park County was “off the hook” due to failures at the state legislature. I also agree no action is a choice often made by local governments, Park County being no exception. And you are correct you did point out the legislature is actively trying to strip authority from local jurisdictions, such as Park County. My response to article was not meant to be hostile towards you as the author, but rather to point out some of the often overlooked variables that impact the success of local governments when dealing with land use issues. Was hoping for an opportunity to provide a different perspective rather than create a rift between a planner and planner. Perhaps a more in-depth conversation will allow me to understand your perspective more clearly.