When someone is in government as an elected official, the official develops a tendency to believe that every problem can be solved by passing a law or ordinance. These actions make everyone feel as if they have accomplished something. Have they really done so?

This tendency of elected officials to solve every problem through legislation is natural for them. That is their tool and, therefore, using it is what they come to know. Looking in hindsight, I don’t believe I was any different when I was an elected official.

Every societal problem cannot be solved this way.

I see this attitude by elected officials over and over: The inability of a commissioner to accept his or her very limited practical scope of authority. By this I mean that, yes, commissioners have the legal authority to pass or change ordinances, but should it be exercised in this way and to such an extent?

Can local government pass an ordinance mandating that no tree can be cut down in a person’s yard without a permit? In Florida today, the answer is yes. However, ordinances such as that have led to the Legislature trying to pass bills to pre-empt that authority from local governments.

There are times that local governments should pass ordinances to curtail egregious behavior within their jurisdictions. If your town is in a resort area, there may be a justifiable reason to regulate short-term rentals within your community.

Often local regulation does not hinge on a need as much as a complaint over a single incident. In Stuart, the entire Commission and City staff have been thrown into a tizzy over a duplex owner that erected a front yard 6-foot fence. To my knowledge, there has never been another incident regarding front yard fences.

There have been complaints from other neighbors on this block of duplexes. Having seen the fence, I don’t blame the residents for their anger. But, because of this one incident, a “Zoning in Progress” has been passed by the Commission. This means that any new front yard fence permits in the entire City will be decided at the discretion of the Development Director until a new ordinance is passed.

Now, thousands of tax dollars are being spent on countless hours of staff time to rewrite the code because of this one incident. The original culprit will still be there because it was grandfathered under the old code. What the Board should do is prohibit front yard fences in this two-block neighborhood of attached homes and leave the rest of Stuart under the existing regulations.

In government, this is not an isolated incident. This is an example of regulation which is not “smart.” You couldn’t call it over regulation because a problem in a narrow section of Stuart does exist. But what the Commission is doing by using this one incident is changing a regulation that has worked for the past half-century. Many people in neighborhoods such as mine have or will want a fence to make sure their dog or kid can’t leave the front yard. They may find they can’t or will be limited to how high or of what material the fence can be.

This unneeded regulation is what gives the Legislature the plausible argument of pre-empting local governments from passing other regulations which are actually needed.

The Legislature is not immune to using the same rationale, only on a statewide basis. It occurs when the Legislator, a friend or one constituent runs into a local ordinance that prevents him or her from doing something. The one thing all politicians have in common, whether on a state or local level, is their ability to believe that all problems have a legislative solution.

Every elected official should not jump to the conclusion that a law passed will equate to a problem solved. In most cases, a smart lawyer or wily citizen will find a way to get around that prohibition. The answer to every problem, or even most problems, cannot be solved by legislation or regulation.