Yesterday I wrote about how majority rule might not always be in our best interest. Today I have a real-life example here in my local area. Twenty-five years ago South Walton County was lightly developed, even along the shore of the Gulf of Mexico. That was about the time that Janet Reeves and Dave Hillgenberg opened their businesses on US Highway 98. Reeves operates a gift shop and Hillgenberg operates a glass and mirror service.

Fast-forward to today and you find a thriving retirement and tourist community of hotels, resorts, restaurants, condominiums, vacation homes and supporting businesses — most of them along US Highway 98. Since South Walton had ‘progressed’ from mostly pine forests and sand to an upscale community where many of the homes are priced in the millions, the majority of the new residents decided that businesses should abide by certain standards of appearance. This majority also decided that these standards of appearance would be retroactive — that no exceptions would be made for small businesses like those of Reeves and Hillgenberg. Never mind that the new standards would place a serious burden on their bottom line.

One could argue that the intent of such standards is just that: to drive businesses that don’t measure up out of business. The tax structure already achieves that end — intentional or not. As property values increase, property taxes increase, and at some point some types of low volume businesses are unable to generate a profit. The proprietors are then forced to sell to a more profitable business. And they can’t always depend on getting what their property is really worth. For example, it might be a very small piece of property sandwiched between two much larger properties. If neither of the adjoining businesses want it, who else is going to buy it?

Anyway, back to Janet and Dave. They sued the county arguing that the “scenic corridor guidelines designed to give the area a uniform look” should not apply to them. They lost. A federal judge said neither Reeves nor Hillgenberg had enough evidence to make their case. The judge apparently believes that their businesses can be sacrificed in order to give the area a uniform look. Since when is a ‘uniform look’ a valid public interest?

Yes, Reeves and Hillgenberg probably could have made the required changes in the appearance of their businesses for the money they spent on the suit, but I applaud them for not doing so. What will this country be like in fifty years if everyone caves to the tyranny of the majority? How long before Starbucks wants your house?