There was a news story on Jan. 20, 2024, that noted a church in Bryan, Ohio had been cited for 18 zoning violations for allowing unhoused (homeless) residents to sleep in a warm place out of the bitter cold. Sure, this may technically have violated the zoning code, but was it so egregious that the town was willing to risk the lives of those being housed there to standby its zoning code? The whole subject raises numerous moral and ethical dilemmas. For example, would the town have preferred these unfortunate people be housed in the morgue after they die from hypothermia? Would Bryan have also cited places for housing people if a destructive tornado had taken place there? Where does the humanitarian line get drawn?
“I’ve always wondered why more churches don’t open doors to the unhoused to sleep or warm up when the weather gets dangerously cold. It’s the God-like thing to do, right?
SOURCE: usatoday.com
Maybe more don’t because of cases like the Ohio pastor, who opened his church doors because the homeless shelters were packed, only to be issued 18 zoning law violations related to keeping his church open to people who needed a warm place to sleep.”
This story is a perfect example of where the planning and zoning profession, as well as those of us who fill those roles must continuously reexamine our individual and collective actions. Are our codes and ordinances so important that they should supersede protecting human lives in dangerous weather conditions? Don’t certain situations warrant temporarily setting aside the code book (without an act of Congress) for safety and/or the greater good? Fortunately, there is a helpful line in the profession’s ethical principles that should provide some clarity in special circumstances like a blizzard, cold wave, tornado, hurricane or similar instance. It states:
“…do not accept the applicability of a customary solution without first establishing its appropriateness to the situation;”
“The unhoused need somewhere to go. Being homeless is not a crime. Helping the homeless should not be a crime.”
SOURCE: news.yahoo.com
What’s happening in Ohio also begs the larger question — are we as planning professionals going to be a party to enforcing morally and/or ethically bankrupt regulations? Or should we be using our expertise to find solutions…to find common ground…and/or to even question/challenge the hierarchy that advocates for applying such laws? This retired planner would opt for the latter. Otherwise, would we be any different that those who have historically said, “I was just following orders.”
Perhaps one way to help planners when they standup/speak out against unjust, unsavory, or even outdated regulations from being enforced in their community would be for the American Planning Association to establish a “planner defense fund.” Such a fund could serve as a temporary source of legal or financial assistance when our fellow members are being unfairly targeted for defending the association’s ethical principles.
Bryan, Ohio may be a small farming town that is but a blip on the national map, but when unacceptable steps begin to be taken at the county, state, and national level, the issue is no longer just a blip. One only need look at Texas and Florida for recent examples of unethical and immoral policies being employed for political points and in at least one recent case resulting in the loss of three lives.
“Strive to expand choice and opportunity for all persons, recognizing a special responsibility to plan for the needs of disadvantaged groups and persons;”
SOURCE: planning.org/ethics/ethicalprinciples/
Unhoused people, migrants, poor/underprivileged people, those with physical or mental challenges, and any other disadvantaged persons should never be shipped-off like cattle, nor treated like pariahs. These folks currently unprecedented challenges to our society that require caring and thoughtful/solutions, not hard-nosed dystopian measures.
Those planners, zoning officials, and others in our profession who support employing draconian steps apparently skipped class during the lectures on the ethical principles of planning in school, let alone missed out on learning the golden rule itself. Now is time for the rest of us, who hold onto the ideals of our profession, to speak out, so that planning remains steadfast in its guiding principles and on course into the future. Peace!
problogic
Panethos 