The Business of Politics

Often, you hear politicians exerting that they are the best candidate for a position because of their "business" experience. Saying you can run government because you have experience running a business is like saying you know how to drive a car because you have experience riding a bike. Sure, they might both be forms of transportation, but that is where the similarities end.

When you run a business, you are the boss—compromise and consensus building is simply not crucial. Take Steve Jobs, for example. Recent articles indicate that he runs Apple like a dictator, firing people on the spot for mistakes and micromanaging every aspect of the company right down to the buses used to transport employees. Given Apple's success, I am certain that Steve Jobs is an excellent CEO. The bottom line is that he makes Apple plenty of money, and, for the most part, that is all that matters. But would we want him as a politician? Would we want a Mayor or City Councilor who exerts that type of control and power?

Ultimately, your goal in a business is to make money. In government, it is to provide necessary services to the greatest number of people. And sometimes those services will not be cost effective. Unlike business, you can't decide to eliminate trash collection services just because you aren't getting a decent ROI (return on investment). You can't eliminate ambulance services to sections of the city simply because it doesn't fit your business plan. In business, customer satisfaction might be a factor in the equation—after all, customers must be satisfied if they are going to come back. But in government, customer satisfaction is the goal.

In politics, employees don't work for you; you work for citizens. And citizens like to complain a lot. They are quick to distrust you, and will assume you haven't done anything, if you haven't solved their problem. There is always a reporter or adversary lurking in the wings, waiting to tear you down. While a business leader can ignore pesky issues like voter popularity, a politician must be constantly aware not only of his actions, but of the perception of his actions. A politician must listen to all sides, making sure that everyone feels that they have been heard. Frequently, a politician must choose between competing sides, ensuring that one side will leave feeling that their rights or interests have been trampled. A good politician finds compromises that allow all sides to feel vindicated.

I am not saying that politicians shouldn't have some business experience. Everyone wants our elected officials to be able to balance the budget, and to have at least some idea of how businesses function. The last three mayors in Tulsa have touted their business experience as what qualified them first and foremost to be mayor, yet their success and failure seem to stem more from their political abilities. Given the current dysfunction in City Hall, perhaps what this city needs is someone who is first and foremost a politician.

Property rights and red herrings

Oliver Wendall Holms once said "The right to swing my fist ends where the other man's nose begins." So too is the case with our land. In America, we often tout our history of private property rights, that a "man's home is his castle." Yet, our property rights have never been absolute. Our right to use our land in a way we see fit only exists to the extent that our use doesn't harm our neighbor's land. In the past, when most people lived on large farms, this wasn't so important. But even then, courts recognized the need to balance between competing property interests. If a smelting company damaged the trees of another, they must pay. If a farmer built a reservoir that caused flooding on another property, they must pay. Because of the distance between neighbors, it was possible for lawsuits to address the competing property rights.

However, as towns and cities grew, our neighbors became closer and more numerous. Lawsuits could not address all of the problems of competing land interests. Tulsa early on recognized the need for government to lay out restrictions on property for the good of the community. Thus in 1906, twenty years before zoning was accepted by the Supreme Court, the city prohibited drilling within the city limits. Such a step recognized that, while it may have deprived some of a property right, it ensured the ability of others to use and enjoy their land. Later, like most of the United States, Tulsa took this a step further by adopting a zoning code. This laid out broad restrictions on our land, regulating uses to certain areas in an attempt to ensure the value of all land. Zoning laws are based on an idea of reciprocity—we all give up a bit of our rights because we recognized the benefit we all achieve. For decades, Tulsans have lived with zoning laws that restrict our property right, yet are designed to enhance the value of our land.

Any time there is a change in zoning laws proposed, you always hear a few who decry that the change would "infringe on my property rights." It reminds me of my kids at the pool, when a summer shower once broke out. My youngest started yelling, "Hurry, we have to go in before we get wet." In a sense, we are already wet—as long as we have zoning laws, our property rights have already been infringed upon. Changes to the zoning laws will affect what you can and can't do with your property. But the idea that somehow the city can never change zoning laws, or that the property rights that you have right now are immutable, is silly. To move forward as a city, we must be able to adapt in our approach to land use, making changes to address new problems and new opportunities. After all, it wasn't until oil was discovered that the city needed to restrict drilling. And the Supreme Court has made clear that cities have the right to regulate land as they see fit, just so long as it isn't arbitrary and doesn't deprive a property owner of all viable economic use. That of course doesn't mean we shouldn't debate the merits of any zoning code change. No one wants to pass an ordinance that hampers growth or harms neighborhoods, so we must always listen to the pros and cons of a zoning code change. But, when someone says we can't change a zoning code because it "infringes on my property rights," we should recognize the argument for what it is—nothing but a red herring.