You’re reading Red Tape, a newsletter on the consequences of overregulation. Click here to get it in your inbox.
Robert Fellner is a litigation fellow at the Institute for Justice and represents Libby Souder in her lawsuit.
For seven years, Libby Souder taught private swim lessons to children at her home in Columbia, South Carolina. This spring, she would normally start teaching soon, when kids could use some practice before summer arrives. But there will be no lessons in her backyard this year after the city shut her down for violating an obscure and long-ignored provision of its zoning code.
Souder has been teaching children to swim for over two decades, and she’s experienced in teaching special-needs kids. When Souder registered her business with the city in 2018, the zoning department signed off on her application and renewed her registration every year thereafter.
But last year, a single complaint changed everything. A new neighbor found out Souder taught lessons in her backyard and protested even before moving in. The city responded by shuttering Souder’s business, citing a provision of the zoning code that requires all home occupations “shall be conducted entirely within the principal structure or within a fully enclosed, lawfully approved structure which is accessory to the residential use.”
Souder thought that it was enough that her pool was fully enclosed by a fence, and city officials seemed to agree for years. But even though she had supportive letters from more than 30 neighbors, the city interpreted its zoning code to prohibit any home-based business that operates outdoors.
Ostensibly, the restriction is intended to protect neighbors from objectively unreasonable or disruptive noise and other disturbances. Yet the lessons Souder provides are not raucous affairs. She usually teaches a single student at a time, and the sound generated is much quieter than a typical pool party. She even placed a decibel meter on her property that showed her lessons produced noise levels roughly equivalent to a conversation. But Columbia’s rules aren’t based in common sense. Indeed, the blanket ban on outdoor home-based businesses means that it would also be unlawful, for example, to teach backyard yoga classes.
Starting a business out of a home is a central story in American entrepreneurialism — Disney, Hewlett-Packard and Microsoft are just a few examples. The Small Business Administration estimated in 2019 that half of all American businesses operate out of homes. Home-based businesses can be a lifeline during economic downturns. A survey conducted by the Institute for Justice from November 2020 to March 2021 showed that 1 in 3 home-based business owners started their venture after pandemic-related job losses.
Yet even though many entrepreneurs’ dreams depend on their being able to start at home, cities often suffocate them in red tape. Many have rules about how much space in the home can be used by the business, requiring applicants to break out measuring tape to avoid crossing invisible lines. Some cities ban customers from visiting or make it illegal to store merchandise inside the home.
Souder is now suing to defend her rights to use her own property and earn a living under the South Carolina Constitution, pointing out the inconsistency of the city’s rules (home-based day cares are allowed to have up to six children outside), and arguing that it’s unjust to allow the city to backtrack on its earlier approval and renewals of her license.
This isn’t a problem unique to South Carolina. The Institute for Justice has successfully sued on behalf of home-based businesses in Tennessee and Texas. In Pennsylvania, we are suing a township trying to shut down a mechanic who operated for 24 years on a 16-acre property.
Courts should protect American entrepreneurs’ property rights and their right to earn an living, but states should also remove barriers to home-based businesses. In 2021, Florida passed a law that standardized rules for operating businesses inside homes. In 2024, Arizona joined a growing number of states loosening rules for residents who sell homemade meals.
Souder is free to host a pool party, her kids can have friends over for swims, and she can even keep teaching the occasional free lesson. But the moment she accepts payment, she is breaking the law. That’s wrong, and cities such as Columbia should not stand in the way of entrepreneurs and home-based businesses.
The post She taught backyard swim lessons. One complaint shut them down. appeared first on Washington Post.
