Public Officials Should Serve the Public Interest

To the Editor:

Regarding PZAB Agrees to Split South Grove Property, I asked ChatGPT to give me an iron cage (opposite of a straw man) analysis of the responsibility of local officials to their constituents. This is what I got. I concur.

IRON CAGE FRAMEWORK FOR DETERMINING OFFICIAL RESPONSIBILITY IN RESIDENTIAL DISTRICTS

1. Principle of Democratic Legitimacy

            •           Core assumption: Officials derive authority from the public through democratic mechanisms (elections, representation, public consultation).

            •           Therefore, primary accountability is to the general public—the constituents—not to stakeholders with private economic interests (like developers), except insofar as they are also members of the public or act in public interest.

2. Residential Zoning Purpose Doctrine

            •           Zoning laws are typically enacted to protect residential quality of life: health, safety, welfare, and property values.

            •           Developers are external actors engaging with the district for profit, not quality-of-life outcomes.

            •           Therefore: Within residentially-zoned areas, the purpose of the designation aligns officials more closely with the interests of existing residents, not with maximizing development or financial turnover.

3. The Public Interest Standard (Not Private Preference)

            •           Officials are not meant to act on behalf of any one group’s preferences but are fiduciaries of the public interest.

            •           However, “public interest” in residential areas is largely composed of homeowners, tenants, and community members—i.e., people living there.

            •           Developers may contribute to public interest (e.g., by increasing housing stock), but they must do so within the constraints of zoning and community plans, which are shaped by local democratic processes.

4. Temporal Stake Analysis

            •           Homeowners/residents typically have long-term stakes: raising families, investing in property, building community.

            •           Developers usually have short-term interests: build, sell, exit.

            •           An iron-cage rational bureaucrat, valuing systemic stability and predictability, will privilege long-term, situated stakeholders over transient, profit-seeking entities.

5. Institutional Constraints: Legal and Procedural Norms

            •           Officials must operate within existing legal frameworks: comprehensive plans, zoning ordinances, permitting procedures.

            •           These are designed to balance competing interests, but they usually codify protections for residential character.

            •           Therefore, unless formally changed through due process, officials are bound to uphold existing resident-oriented frameworks over development interests.

6. Risk Distribution

            •           Poorly regulated development externalizes costs (congestion, noise, displacement, environmental degradation) onto existing residents.

            •           An iron-cage decision-maker minimizes negative externalities and uneven risk distribution.

            •           Thus, precautionary alignment with resident needs is a more rational approach.

7. Capture Safeguard Doctrine

            •           Because developers are more organized, funded, and incentivized to influence policy (i.e., regulatory capture), officials must deliberately counterbalance this by proactively engaging with and protecting the public/residential interest.

            •           Bureaucratic neutrality and ethics demand awareness of asymmetric power and an affirmative duty to prevent policy distortion in favor of developers.

⸻

CONCLUSION (Iron Cage Version)

In a residential district, officials should be more responsible to homeowners and residents, not because homeowners are inherently virtuous or right, but because:

            •           Officials are agents of the public interest, not private capital.

            •           The zoning framework privileges residential integrity.

            •           Residents have enduring stakes and bear the risks of policy decisions.

            •           Developers, while important, are secondary actors whose proposals must align with established public plans and norms.

This isn’t a romantic or populist position—it’s a logical, rule-bound, structurally sound approach rooted in democratic legitimacy, legal obligation, and bureaucratic rationality.

Katrina Morris

Coconut Grove