Albemarle’s Proposed ARB Solution is Worse than The Problem

FORUM WATCH EDITORIAL

By. Neil Williamson, President

The other afternoon, as the sky grew dark and I heard loud rumbling in the distance, I was reminded of Albemarle County’s proposed improvements to the development review process.

Just as the rumbling prior to a summer storm, last week’s stakeholder roundtable  provided significant warning that the proposed revisions are not embraced by those whom will be impacted, and that the provisions regarding the Architectural Review Board (ARB) may make an existing bad problem exponentially worse.

Please let me explain.

By code, the ARB has very specific and limited powers.  The ARB has been concerned that by the time they get to see the project’s “final site plan” too many decisions have already been approved (including the location of buildings on a site).

In a May 2008 post, the Free Enterprise Forum highlighted the ARB’s desire to increase their purview:

After the staff presentations, Paul Wright of the Architectural Review Board presented a number of concerns the ARB has with the current processes.  These concerns included enforcement and an inability of the ARB under its current powers to control the skyline within the entrance corridors.

The resulting discussion changed the course of the meeting entirely.  Rather than looking for ways to streamline the development review process and improve public understanding, the members of the ARB pressed for more power.  In addition they expressed concerns that they were the last consulted regarding one of the County’s own projects Albemarle High School expansion.  One member of the ARB suggested they should be consulted on every building the County has an interest in.

Trapped in a regulatory box, Albemarle County staff has proposed placing an ARB  staff member on the site review committee.  The site review committee will review all by right site development and the ARB representative will only be consulted on projects in the entrance corridor.

In addition, as this is a by right development, the site review committee will be able to issue two types of direction – requirements and recommendations.  Most of the ARB work is directly written in the code so their comments will be recommendations.

As staff explained to the ARB last week, you would likely identify areas that, while not legally required for approval, might need additional landscaping to mitigate their impacts.

Taking this to its logical conclusion the ARB may wish to have a building on the rear of the parcel to better protect the streetscape in the entrance corridor, while the planning department may wish to have the building on the entrance corridor better to hide the sea of parking.  Since relegated parking is in the code, and ARB’s preference is not codified, the building would be placed on the front of the parcel and the site plan is approved.

Now it comes time for the final site plan approval and the required certificate of appropriateness from the ARB.  This applicant, who followed the prescribed plan clearly has ignored the ARB’s wishes because they did not move the building as ARB “recommended”.

How can the ARB move forward without malice on this application?  How can they not even if just subliminally believe the applicant is unwilling to work with them?

How exactly is this situation better than the current scenario?

The angry bee theory — as a young boy, my mother told me not to swat at a bee unless I was sure I would kill it; otherwise you have an angry, focused and motivated opponent.

While understanding staff’s intent in including the ARB in the site review committee, the Free Enterprise Forum believes that since much of the ARB power is not codified, the end result would be an ARB even more ostracized (and angry) than the current approval construct.

Respectfully Submitted,

Neil Williamson, President

—————————————————————

Neil Williamson is the President of The Free Enterprise Forum, a privately funded public policy organization covering the City of Charlottesville as well as Albemarle, Greene, Fluvanna, Louisa and  Nelson County.  For more information visit the website www.freeenterpriseforum.org

Photo Credit: Ann Stober -Nelson County Life, Keenkid Blog

Albemarle ARB Pushes Back on Neighborhood Model

By. Neil Williamson, President

This afternoon (6/18) Albemarle County’s Architectural Review Board (ARB) had an interesting tidbit on their agenda – a discussion of EC [Entrance Corridor] impacts of relegated parking.

The Free Enterprise Forum’s opposition to mandated relegated parking dates back to 2003 when it was first considered as a part of Albemarle County’s Neighborhood Model.  At that time we wrote to the Albemarle County Board of Supervisors:

As written, it is anticipated that a significant number of businesses would establish the front of their shop as the “rear” and close all public access from the street side of the building. As architecture critic Craig Whitaker notes in his book Architecture and the American Dream, if cars are moved to the back, “the front doors would start following the cars.”

In an August 2011 post [The ARB vs. The Neighborhood Model] , we referenced the conflict between the ARB guidelines and the new urbanism theory of the Neighborhood Model.  As one example we mentioned Albemarle County’s challenges manning a front and rear door for the Crozet library. 

In perhaps the best local commercial example yet, this afternoon I shared the following images from the new buildings in the Hollymead Town Center with the ARB.

These photos, taken this morning, provide real world experience with creating a design that fails to function well.  The majority of the parking is on the opposite side thus that is Holly Nails’ front door.

As the ARB started their discussion, Member Paul Wright said, “Relegated Parking is the number one architectural problem we have in the entrance corridor…seems we are protecting people in cars from seeing cars” [emphasis added-nw].

Wright went further to describe the new urbanist concept of placing the parking to the rear results in the best architectural design is on the backs of buildings.  What we wind up with is canyons of parking behind buildings.

ARB Member Chuck Lebo suggested that, “I ‘d rather see roofs of cars than the back of buildings [facing the entrance corridor]”

In drafting a resolution to be recommended to the Board of Supervisors, Member Bruce Wardell said “The ARB strongly recommends the the Board of Supervisors that certain provisions of the neighborhood model regarding building frontage relegated parking and the possibility of limited parking on the entrance corridor side of buildings be reconsidered.

“The ARB has found on numerous occasions the quality of design responsiveness of architectural environment to the entrance corridor is compromised by needing to address frontage on the EC and relegated parking facades.”

The ARB supported the resolution 4-0.

Wright asked that staff attempt to get this item on the Board of Supervisors agenda as soon as possible so these changes could be part of the Comprehensive Plan discussion moving forward.

How will the Albemarle County staff, which has been very supportive of relegated parking and new urbanist design for over a decade, engage the Board of Supervisors now that the Architectural Review Board has expressed their displeasure?

Stay Tuned.

Respectfully Submitted,

Neil Williamson

—————————————————————

Neil Williamson is the President of The Free Enterprise Forum, a privately funded public policy organization covering the City of Charlottesville as well as Albemarle, Greene, Fluvanna, Louisa and  Nelson County.  For more information visit the website www.freeenterpriseforum.org

Photo Credit: Free Enterprise Forum

Albemarle’s ARB wants to be VDOT?

By. Neil Williamson, President

In their March 19th meeting, the Albemarle County Architectural Review Board (ARB) was considering a lighting application from the Shops at Stonefield [US 29 at Hydraulic]. 

In the discussion, one member of the ARB suggested part of the photometric plan presented included lighting so bright it could distract drivers and impact automobile safety in the intersection. The applicant countered that the plan had been fully vetted and met or exceeded all of Albemarle’s existing lighting ordinances.  In this instance the ARB seems to be acting like a black hole, opining on  anything and everything in the application regardless of limitations on its authority.

The Virginia Department of Transportation (VDOT) has a very specific mission:

Our mission is to plan, deliver, operate and maintain a transportation system that is safe, enables easy movement of people and goods, enhances the economy and improves our quality of life.

To be clear, the Free Enterprise Forum has no position on this, or any other specific application but it seems clear that this ARB member is well outside of the ARB bounds set by the state code:

Section  15.2-2306  of  the  Code  of  Virginia  authorizes  localities  to  regulate  the  design  of development along streets, roads, and highways providing significant routes of tourist access to the County and to designated historic landmarks, structures or districts and to contiguous cities
and towns to insure that such development is compatible with the architecture of the historically significant landmarks, buildings, and structures to which these routes lead.   These “entrance corridors” have been designated by the locality.  The review of development proposals within such corridors is to be undertaken by the locally designated Architectural Review Board.

While the Free Enterprise Forum believes that Albemarle has expanded the concept of Entrance Corridors beyond the state intent (There are 21 Albemarle roads designated as “Entrance Corridors”) our larger concern in this post is the unabated mission creep that seems to be crop up annually.  Back in February 2011 in our “Anti Business Mission Creep” post we documented several instances where the ARB was “difficult” with new businesses.

It’s not that Albemarle County’s materials do not clearly state the scope of influence.  The ARB’s own glossy brochure describes their function in this manner:

The Architectural Review Board (ARB) is responsible  for  regulating  the  design  of development in the County’s Entrance Corridors.     The  purpose  of  the  ARB’s review  is  to  ensure  that  development  in these corridors reflects the traditional architecture  of  the  area and  that development within the corridors is orderly, attractive,  and  enhances  the  community’s quality of life.

The linguist in me sees the language “enhances the quality of life” as problematic.  It could be argued that everything from the building materials used to the products sold might impact the community’s quality of life.  But the reality is the ARB has a limited scope of work.

It is interesting to note not fifteen minutes prior to the Stonefield application, this same board member was quoting chapter and verse out of the ARB’s Design Guidelines.  The fact that these design guidelines say NOTHING about ARB purview on vehicular safety was not adequately discussed.

It seems clear to this regular ARB meeting attendee that quoting the guidelines only when it suits your opinion is somewhere between disingenuous and hypocritical. 

Considering Albemarle County’s stated desire to be business friendly, one might think the Board of Supervisors appointees on the ARB would stick to their knitting and allow Virginia Department of Transportation (VDOT) do their state mandated job and worry about traffic impacts.  Unless on any particular application such a division of labor doesn’t suit their ideological interventionist philosophy.

Respectfully submitted,

Neil Williamson

—————————————————————

Neil Williamson is the President of The Free Enterprise Forum, a privately funded public policy organization covering the City of Charlottesville as well as Albemarle, Greene, Fluvanna, Louisa and  Nelson County.  For more information visit the website www.freeenterpriseforum.org

The ARB vs. The Neighborhood Model

By. Neil Williamson, President

Yesterday’s (8/15) Albemarle County Architectural Review Board (ARB) meeting featured a work session on the Shops at Stonefield including the proposed, and highly anticipated, Trader Joe’s market.   It is important to note, the Free Enterprise Forum has no position on this, or any other, development proposal but finds the process worthy of attention.

Brian Wheeler of Charlottesville Tomorrow captured the tenor of the meeting in the lead to his Daily Progress front page story:

The developers of Stonefield didn’t get much time to relish last month’s approval of the design for a new Regal Cinema. The proposed Trader Joe’s grocery store, and every other building under review by the Albemarle County Architectural Review Board, hit a buzz saw of criticism Monday.

photo credit: ARB Presentation

The charge of the ARB is to regulate the aesthetics of the Entrance Corridors.   According to Albemarle County:

[The ARB is] charged with the responsibility of regulating the design of development within the County’s Entrance Corridors. Entrance Corridors are streets that provide routes of tourist access to the County and to historic landmarks, structures, and districts. The goal of this regulation is to ensure that new development in these corridors reflects the traditional architecture of the area and that development within the corridors is orderly and attractive.

Albemarle County’s Neighborhood Model calls for:

The Neighborhood Model proposes reassessing parking standards and finding ways to make parking areas
less dominant from the street. Such steps should improve the visual character of the community and
make possible a more functional and appealing pedestrian
environment.

So following Albemarle’s Neighborhood Model, the applicant, Edens & Avant,  placed the parking behind the building thus protecting the public from looking at a sea of parking.  This location meant that other critical operational elements, loading docks, electrical equipment etc. needed to e placed somewhere other than the rear of the building – which was now the front.

Couldn’t this conflict have been predicted?  Yes.

Way back in 2003, the Free Enterprise Forum wrote to the Albemarle Board of Supervisors:

As written, it is anticipated that a significant number of businesses would establish the front of their shop as the “rear” and close all public access from the street side of the building. As architecture critic Craig Whitaker notes in his book Architecture and the American Dream, if cars are moved to the back, “the front doors would start following the cars.”

Randal O’Toole, in his book The Vanishing Automobile and other urban myths, cites

“Small shops may have only enough personnel to monitor one entrance to the store, and that will usually be the entrance to the parking lot”. In 1996, Portland writer Bob Elliot noted a store in Southeast Portland (a pioneer in new urbanism) where the door fronting the street “is barricaded with merchandise on the inside” and “a sign directs you to the back entrance off the parking lot.”

We need only look to the proposed Crozet Library to see this phenomena in action.

Photo Credit: Albemarle County

While the building has doors on the street level, the library has no intention of ever using them.  Why?  The Library Board explained to the Board of Supervisors that they could not afford to have staff at both entrances and without such staffing the doors would present a security risk to patrons and employees.  Just as O’Toole wrote in 2001 about private businesses.

The only street access to the library is an awning covered walkway that leads to the “back” now “front” door.

 

 

Photo Credit Edens & Avant Website

During the course of the ARB meeting, Board member Paul Wright made a point utilizing  images of other Edens & Avant projects including the Shoppes at Ryan Park in Ashburn (on left).

A closer examination of this picture reveals that there is parking in front of the center, in direct opposition to Albemarle’s Neighborhood model concept.

All of this is going on in the new “business friendly” Albemarle County.

It certainly feels more like the atmosphere in 2003 when then Planning Commissioner Bill Edgerton said,

“If a particular franchisee does not want to build it the way we say, then Albemarle County is better off without them”.

While the Free Enterprise Forum has no opinion on this specific application, the ARB process and the complications of conflicting comprehensive plan goals is worthy of attention.

The implications for the economic vitality of the development areas and the regulatory burdens placed on such development are significant.

Stay tuned.

Respectfully Submitted,

Neil Williamson

—————————————————————

Neil Williamson is the President of The Free Enterprise Forum, a privately funded public policy organization covering the City of Charlottesville as well as Albemarle, Greene, Fluvanna, Louisa and Nelson County.  For more information visit the website www.freeenterpriseforum.org

Albemarle’s Anti Business Mission Creep

FORUM WATCH EDITORIAL

By. Neil Williamson, President

Last year, the Albemarle County Board of Supervisors passed their Economic Development Action Plan designed to improve economic vitality and business perception of Albemarle County.  It seems as though someone forgot to tell their appointed Boards and Commissions. 

In several different actions over the last two weeks, the Architectural Review Board (ARB) and the Planning Commission have unnecessarily flexed their regulatory muscles to the detriment of the business climate/perception. 

Before going into detail on these issues, it is important to note, the Free Enterprise Forum does not have a position on any specific project application, we use these examples to highlight the policy positions we do support.

ARB Does Not Like “Wells Fargo” Yellow

 Back in 2008, Wells Fargo merged with Wachovia.  Since that time west coast based Wells Fargo has been steadily working their way east, rebranding Wachovia branches as Wells Fargo branches (Arlington, Texas in photograph). 

In their February 22nd meeting, Albemarle County’s Architectural Review Board reviewed a color sample provided to staff by Wells Fargo prior to submitting an application.   It was clear the ARB did not like what was called “Wells Fargo” yellow.  As with the Giant Food application below, the ARB places no value nor import on established corporate branding.  As one Board member put it, “The corporate standard is not germane to the discussion of the ARB”.

To add insult to injury, the sign in question (Airport Road & US 29) is located just eleven paces south of the Charlottesville Albemarle Airport sign that did not undergo ARB review.  As we wrote in a post earlier this month regarding the red light cameras (which also did not go through ARB approval), such action reeks of a double standard between “county/VDOT” projects and private businesses. 

It is difficult to argue that this sign  is not “advertising” the airport; why then does it not rise to the same level of county scrutiny as the Wells Fargo sign (eleven paces south)?

Giant’s New Logo does not impress ARB  

Giant Food is also in the process of a rebranding effort.  The Seminole Square Giant is located in the City of Charlottesville (see photos) and has completed their new signage project

In September of 2010, The Pantops location applied  to the ARB to change out their sign with a colorful new sign where the logo is larger than the letters of the word Giant.

Working from staff’s recommendation, the ARB was troubled by the difference in size between the logo and the letters.  In discussion, one Board member voiced his concern that “ Graphically the logo is too large for the type”. 

Without any firsthand knowledge of the situation, I would imagine the graphic image that Giant Food is placing on their stores throughout the Mid-Atlantic region has been focus group tested and represents what the company feels conveys its corporate message and will bring in the most business.  The applicant described the logo as a “fruit bowl” that is important to Giant’s corporate identity. 

Rather than follow the the corporate standard (and the sign package located a few miles away in the City), the ARB unanimously chose to dictate that the logo height must be limited to 4’, which is the maximum height of the Giant letters. 

The Free Enterprise Forum questions the impact of this size differential on a sign located approximately 500’ from the Entrance Corridor and if the benefit of the reduction in logo size is really worth the five months it took to get through the ARB process.

Planning Commission Dictates Membership

There has been a significant amount of media attention to the Blue Ridge Pool/Day Camp application.  In considering the application to establish a summer day camp at the existing pool location in Ivy, the Planning Commission heard from neighbors of the facility regarding impacts on their lives.  The applicant agreed to restrictions on the hours of operation, days of operation, number of persons on the property and number of memberships. 

The Free Enterprise Forum is most concerned with the last of these conditions.  The Planning Commission is charged with land use planning and regulation, how does the number of memberships impact the intensity of land use?  It does not. 

Clearly the Planning Commission was within their bounds regarding the number of persons on the property at any one time, this speaks to the intensity of the use.  To limit the number of memberships sold unnecessarily infringes on the applicant’s ability to address the needs of the market.  If the applicant finds that a weekday only membership provides new members (and revenue) to the club and does not impact his maximum capacity, why should this be restricted as a land use issue?

Without having an opinion on the outcome of this specific application, the Free Enterprise Forum hopes that the Board of Supervisors will remove the membership restriction prior to voting on the proposal.

Conclusion

As we reported in our Regulatory Rationale post, Albemarle County’s Planning Commission is clearly pushing the envelope of their regulatory powers by “criminalizing” winery noise violations.  It seems clear from reading the County Attorney’s remarks that this was not the direction provided to the Planning Commission by the Board of Supervisors.

Whether or not the ARB’s actions are in concert with the thinking of Albemarle County’s Board of Supervisors is a bit more difficult to determine.  While applicants have the ability to appeal ARB decisions to the BOS, few ever do.  While this is regrettable, it is understandable – applicants have a business to run not windmills to tilt.

Back in 2001, the ARB considered the Albemarle County welcome signs (in the US 29 median) on three different occasions.  It is unclear why Albemarle no longer believes such signs impact the entrance corridor and are not subject to ARB review.  There should not be such a double standard. 

In addition, the Free Enterprise Forum is very concerned that appointed committees and boards may not have a solid understanding of their role on these “advisory” panels.  Too often these positions have become soapboxes for advancing personal agendas rather than promoting the publicly vetted and supervisor endorsed Comprehensive Plan. 

There is no doubt that Albemarle County’s Board of Supervisors is very concerned with changing the County’s anti-business perception and promoting the economic vitality of the region.  The anti-businees mission creep of their appointed boards and commissions actions seem in conflict with this mission.

If appointed committee members are not following Board Policy, they should be reprimanded, redirected or removed.   That’s the level of accountability the community deserves.

Respectfully Submitted,

Neil Williamson

—————————————————————

Neil Williamson is the President of The Free Enterprise Forum, a privately funded public policy organization covering the City of Charlottesville as well as Albemarle, Greene, Fluvanna and Nelson County.  For more information visit the website www.freeenterpriseforum.org

 

Did Albemarle’s Photosafe Cameras Run the ARB Stop Light?

By. Neil Williamson, President

In late November of last year, Albemarle County installed red light enforcement cameras (Photosafe Program) at the intersection of Rio Road and US 29.  As regular readers of this blog know, Albemarle County has designated twenty one of its roadways as “Entrance Corridors” which requires a “certificate of appropriateness” to be issued from the Architectural Review Board (ARB).  Both US 29 and Rio Road are “Entrance Corridors”. 

According to Albemarle’s website:

The Albemarle County Architectural Review Board (ARB) is appointed by the Board of Supervisors and is charged with the responsibility of regulating the design of development within the County’s Entrance Corridors. The goal of this regulation is to ensure that new development in these corridors reflects the traditional architecture of the area and that development within the corridors is orderly and attractive.

As the only regular public attendee at ARB meetings, the Free Enterprise Forum has witnessed many long discussions about specific sign colors, sign height, massing of letters on a sign, materials used, and much more.

Last week, we watched as the ARB admonished business owners who were placing neon signs in their window or placing their products out in front of their store in the entrance corridor. 

We are aware that there is a well established criteria for cell tower composition (hollow metal painted brown).  So we were most curious how we missed the meeting where the ARB approved the construction of the sleek, tall silver twin towers peering directly on the entrance corridor.

Remembering that these units were placed in the Entrance Corridor at the specific direction of Albemarle County, not the Commonwealth of Virginia and that they reach approximately 15 feet into the view shed; we were more than a little confused to learn that the  cameras were not the subject of a review by the ARB.  Examining the photos in this post, it is difficult to argue these twin towers do not have an impact on the appearance of the entrance corridor.  At a minimum, they have as much impact as a cell tower located much further from the Entrance Corridor.

The ARB has had a significant impact on development (and the cost of development) in the “entrance corridors”.  Last year, the Free Enterprise Forum published the  “Eye of the Beholder” report documenting some of our issues and potential solutions to the delays that often accompany an “entrance corridor” project.

To be clear, the Free Enterprise Forum does not have a position on the effectiveness, legality  or appropriateness of red light cameras, we will leave those discussions to others.  We do take great issue with the double standard that Albemarle County is not required to undergo the same level of ARB review for revenue generating (and perhaps life saving) red light cameras as the businesses located  in entrance corridors. 

Based on our understanding of the sensibilities of the members of the ARB, We believe they would likely have made modifications to the design to improve the project’s “impact on the entrance corridor”.

But instead of adding this delay to the implementation of PhotoSafe Albemarle County choose to simply run the light hoping no one would notice.  Luckily we had our camera.

 Respectfully Submitted,

Neil Williamson

—————————————————————

Neil Williamson is the President of The Free Enterprise Forum, a privately funded public policy organization covering the City of Charlottesville as well as Albemarle, Greene, Fluvanna and Nelson County.  For more information visit the website www.freeenterpriseforum.org

 

Too Much Planning?

This morning’s Daily Progress featured a column by George Will mentioned Friedrich Hayek’s description of the “Fatal Conceit” – the idea that government can know the future’s possibilities and can and should control the future’s agenda.

Considering Hayek’s position and the high level of planning in Albemarle County – with 50 planning commission meetings annually and 22 Entrance Corridors regulated by the Architectural Review Board - raises the question, can there be such a thing as too much planning? 

If one multifaceted governmental review of a proposal is good, shouldn’t ten make the proposal ten times better?  Or, is there a point of diminishing return on time (and tax dollars)? 

On May 21, 2008, The Albemarle County Board of Supervisors, Planning Commission, and Architectural Review Board held their first joint meeting since 2005.  The meeting, in part, was a reply from the Development Review Task Force report created to evaluate the development approval process.

The majority of the meeting included presentations explaining the process and allowing staff to identify where potential time savings can be made. 

Staff was concerned about applicants who do not include all the items on the development submission checklist.  They explained that the checklist is provided as a guide but if an applicant turns in the application without everything they still must accept it.  One board member suggested writing an ordinance to require those items.  Another board member was concerned that if that was done the locality could not then ask for additional information.  This item, as with all others introduced at this meeting will be continued in a future meeting.

In one of the more interesting slides of the day, staff highlighted that many localities Albemarle County often compares itself to only hold Planning Commission meetings once a month.  Albemarle County Planning Commission meets once a week.  In addition to the considerable time commitment of Planning Commissioners, the staff time to prepare for a planning commission meeting is enormous.  One solution discussed was increasing the number of proposals that can be handled under administrative review (eroding Planning Commission/Board of Supervisors power).  Projects that are administratively approved require half the staff time of projects that go to the Planning Commission. 

After the staff presentations, Paul Wright of the Architectural Review Board presented a number of concerns the ARB has with the current processes.  These concerns included enforcement and an inability of the ARB under its current powers to control the skyline within the entrance corridors.

The resulting discussion changed the course of the meeting entirely.  Rather than looking for ways to streamline the development review process and improve public understanding, the members of the ARB pressed for more power.  In addition they expressed concerns that they were the last consulted regarding one of the County’s own projects Albemarle High School expansion.  One member of the ARB suggested they should be consulted on every building the County has an interest in.

Thus a meeting designated to discuss streamlining development approvals devolved into a conversation creating new time intensive initatives and possibly expanding ARB powers. 

The results of the meeting are more meetings to evaluate the ARB proposal and the staff proposals.

The ARB is an advisory board on matters in the entrance corridor overlay district to the Planning Commission and The Board of Supervisors.  The Free Enterprise Forum has previously expressed concern over the number of roadways that are now considered Entrance Corridors (22).  Not satisfied with expanding their powers geographically, The Free Enterprise Forum believes the ARB is accelerating toward expanding its “advisory” powers.  Such an expansion should be approached with great trepidation.

Again quoting Nobel Laurate Economist Friedrich Hayek,

“What our generation has forgotten is that the system of private property is the most important guarantee of freedom, not only for those who own property, but scarcely less for those who do not. It is only because the control of the means of production is divided among many people acting independently that nobody has complete power over us, that we as individuals can decide what to do with ourselves

We shall never prevent the abuse of power if we are not prepared to limit power in a way which occasionally may prevent its use for desirable purposes.” -The Road to Serfdom, 1944