In Federalist No. 51, James Madison famously argued that "If men were angels, no government would be necessary," emphasizing the need for structured governance to check human flaws while advocating limited, balanced power.
This wisdom resonates today as communities like ours grapple with the tension between individual freedoms, such as property rights, and collective protections against unregulated capitalism, which also have property rights.
We should never require licenses or permits to exercise core rights, yet without safeguards like Planning & Zoning (P&Z) rules, citizens risk becoming victims of big business's harms, as with ADI.
As lovers of freedom and liberty, the key question is, where do we draw the proper line on property rights? And how do we preempt threats like unsafe industrial developments, even when federal standards deem them "safe," but locals know better?
The answer lies in proactive local action. Eliminating heavy industrial zoning (I-1 and I-2) inside city limits and pushing such uses to unincorporated areas. This article explores the balance and outlines a starting point for towns like ours.
The Proper Line on Property Rights: Freedom with Community Safeguards
Property rights are foundational to American liberty, rooted in the Fifth Amendment's Takings Clause, which protects against government seizure without just compensation. In a truly free society, individuals should build and use land without undue interference, echoing the Federalist call for small government to avoid tyranny.
However, humans aren't angels, so absolute rights can lead to "unsafe capitalism" where one owner's factory poisons a neighbor's well or air. For liberty lovers, this means favoring local, minimal interventions.
Sure, we can allow "by-right" uses like small farms or shops, but require scrutiny for high-risk uses needing conditional use permits or variances. A taller sign might annoy someone or block a view, so we require a variance and hearings, fair enough; it's a minor infringement, easily mitigated.
But variances that threaten clean air, clean water, public health, or even life shouldn't be on the table at all in populated areas. Period.
Stopping Unsafe Businesses: Local Power Over Federal Simplifications
When a business claims a "right to build" under existing zoning and federal agencies (e.g., ADEQ) deem outputs "safe," residents often face an uphill battle, as we face today.
Federal standards under the Clean Air Act set a one-size-fits-all baselines that often overlook site-specific risks, such as Benson's severe drought, worsening water draw down or local winds carrying industrial particulates to nearby schools, farms, and orchards.
However, states and localities can enforce stricter rules when not federally preempted.
- Tools like zoning denials, blocking "by-right" projects via compatibility findings, or moratoriums.
- Citing nuisances like fluoride drift harming nut trees at levels deadly locally, despite federal thresholds.
- Nuisance lawsuits where residents prove harm to property or health with independent studies, such as local hydrological models showing aquifer strain, environmental justice claims (leveraging EPA frameworks to highlight disproportionate impacts and force reevaluation).
- Referendums/petitions (gathering 15% of voter signatures in Arizona to ballot approvals or force rezoning).
These mechanisms do give communities real power to push back against oversimplified federal approvals, but the cost is brutal.
- Months or years of meetings, petitions, and court dates, while construction crews might already be grading the site.
- Filing fees, independent studies (air/water modeling can run $10k–$50k+), and even pro bono lawyers need expenses covered.
- If it escalates, residents can face six-figure battles against corporate attorneys, with no guarantee of reimbursement even if they win.
And the worst part, it's almost always Reactive.
The "runaway train" is already barreling through town, permits applied for, approvals rushed, ground possibly broken, before the community fully wakes up and organizes.
By then, you're fighting an uphill battle just to slow it down, not stop it cold. That's why the real victory isn't better tools to fight the last battle, it's preemption. Changing the rules so the train never gets on the tracks in the first place.
Eliminate or severely restrict I-1 and I-2 zoning inside city limits.
Force heavy industry to locate in unincorporated county land, far from homes, schools, and rivers. Do it through the General Plan update, code amendments, and voter initiatives, before the next ADI-style project even looks at Benson.
Yes, this fight takes time and organization, too, but it's proactive.
One successful rezoning protects the community for decades, not just one project. And once done, the next corporation shopping for a cheap, permissive town simply moves on, no lawsuit needed.
The reactive path is exhausting and expensive. The preemptive path is hard once, but permanent.
That's where the energy needs to go now: Not just stopping ADI, but making sure nothing like it can ever happen here again.