A force for the good of the islands

By
|
Posted on Mar 03 2012
Share

By STANLEY T. MCGINNIS TORRES
Special to the Saipan Tribune

Zoning can be a very positive force for good on Saipan if done correctly. It can be an anchor that drags us down if done only to protect the rich from competition or to shield them from the reality of island life and our traditions.

I have listened to the few who oppose the bill to improve zoning (House Local Bill 17-26,S3) and have noticed one main thing about their objections. They come mainly from people and companies that already have their property zoned like they want it. The objections come from the wealthy and the landed rich. Almost to a man or woman, they have a statesider’s mentality about restrictive zoning because they are rich and want to keep the reality of everyday life away from themselves.

The problem with that is that most of my constituents don’t fall into this class of elites who want to pretend the old zoning laws as enacted now are as good for Saipan as they were for Fort Lauderdale, Florida, for which they were written. The decent citizens that voted for me to represent them don’t want to stop development, they don’t want every house in their neighborhood to look like every other house, so many feet apart and with a fence so high and a color that suits the Zoning board. They own a small or a big piece of land and want to use it for their family’s benefit.

Regular people with small landholdings want to have access to development on their property for business or residences without the wealthy elites forcing unreasonable costs and restrictions on them. The everyday citizen, my neighbors and yours, just want to use their own land as they see fit. The heavy-handed zoning laws as written now keep them from using their own land more often than not. The smaller, private investor should benefit from zoning as much as the big, corner intersection, established business does.

The Saipan Chamber of Commerce and their organizations that support the old zoning rules just want to make it hard for competition to get started. HLB 17-26, S3 tries to correct this situation and make it again possible for the little guy to get his business started without zoning costing him a fortune. HLB 17-26 S3 finds the right compromise that zones but still lets a rural, town, or village property owner build and develop his or her property for business or for a residence and having to be told that you cannot do that kind of business because it is not permitted, period-for example religious activities. Since when do we regulate religious activities?

The zoning laws need to be first culturally and business friendly for all businesses big and small. They need to be developer friendly, whether one house or a whole tract. They need to be landowner friendly. They need to allow private owners to determine the best use of their own land first and foremost.

The changes to the laws are needed. The amendments proposed in HLB 17-26, S3 are not put forth to protect the bigger members of the Chamber of Commerce. The amendments are to allow the least of us to get into the system: To start a business or to build us a house and to use our own property in a way that benefits us while still preserving the island way and our island’s beauty.

This is not Fort Lauderdale or New York City. Our island community is a special place with special needs and what we do not need is a meddlesome zoning law that keeps us from using our own land for the good of our own family. We need zoning to point us in a direction, not to hit us with a hammer.

Please join me in supporting HLB 17-26, S3. Once approved by the governor it will become a force for growth and prosperity for our home island of Saipan.

Stanley Tudela McGinnis Torres is a member of the House of Representatives of the 17th CNMI Legislature.

admin
Disclaimer: Comments are moderated. They will not appear immediately or even on the same day. Comments should be related to the topic. Off-topic comments would be deleted. Profanities are not allowed. Comments that are potentially libelous, inflammatory, or slanderous would be deleted.