In 1939, the Alabama Legislature adopted “We Dare Defend Our Rights” as our official state motto, and it accurately reflects the fundamental beliefs regarding freedoms and liberties that the vast majority of our citizens embrace.

The Alabama Religious Freedom Amendment that was ratified by voters and enshrined in our state constitution defends the right to worship as you please. Our constitutional carry law that allows citizens to carry firearms without first requesting government permission defends Second amendment gun rights.

Alabama’s strongest-in-the-nation law that bans abortion and protects the unborn defends the basic right to life. But one liberty that is sometimes overlooked and in need of an added dose of defense is property rights.

I am a lifelong outdoorsman, and I believe strongly if someone in Alabama wants to buy some acreage and develop it for hunting land, they should be allowed to do it. The same goes for building a lake for fishing.

Hunting property cannot be created in urban settings, of course, but in more remote locations where the safety of surrounding people and property can be assured, no government or individual should stand in your way.

It boils down to the theory that rights are sacred until they infringe on the rights of another, or as a quote attributed to Supreme Court Justice Oliver Holmes says, “My right to swing my fist ends where your nose begins.”

But even in Alabama, property rights remain under constant threat from their mortal enemy — aggressive, intrusive, and overly invoked zoning decisions.

With the simple cast of a vote and the stroke of a pen, local government zoning decisions can instantly wipe away property rights and stop any project, large or small, dead in its tracks.

A pattern of inconsistent and extreme zoning mandates can result in investors, business recruiters, and economic development prospects abandoning some towns and communities altogether for fear that their significant financial outlays could be lost at the whim of local officials.

Some communities are currently wrestling with exactly this kind of question as proposals emerge to change zoning or land-use rules after property has already been purchased and development has begun under existing regulations.

Whether someone personally supports or opposes a particular project is not the central issue because allowing government to change zone rules after projects have begun is like letting referees rewrite the entire rulebook at halftime of a football game.

This exact scenario is being played out in south Alabama with a clean, renewable energy infrastructure project that is essential to supplying power for an $800 million Meta data center in Montgomery that will soon add more than 100 jobs.

Some are seeking to halt the already approved and underway project by changing zoning rules, but if they are successful, it could deter future investors from starting businesses in the area and harm job creation and economic progress for years to come.

When government changes the rules for one property owner because of public pressure, it sends a message that no one’s property rights are truly secure. Today it might be one type of development, but tomorrow it could be a farm expansion, a mom-and-pop storefront or business, or a family home built on land that outsiders would prefer to see used differently.

Changing the rules midstream may feel like a quick solution, but the long-term consequences are far greater. It risks undermining the rule of law and weakening a principle that has protected American property owners for generations.

Leadership sometimes requires defending principles even when it would be easier to simply follow the loudest voices in the room.

If we want to preserve the freedoms and opportunities that property ownership provides, we must remain committed to a simple but essential idea — when someone follows the law and invests in their property based on the rules that exist, those rules should not be changed after the fact.

There is no ranking or hierarchy of our individual rights because all of them are precious and important, and blood was shed on battlefields to secure each of them.

The loss of property rights could start a chain reaction that quickly leads to the loss of other freedoms, and that is a road that no true patriot should ever want to travel.