Don't Sweat the Small Stuff 42

Ashby Developers Seek Justice
Last week Buckhead Development (of Ashby High Rise fame) sued the city for $40 million. One of the principals, Kevin Kirton, was quoted in the Chronicle:

The city must learn that it cannot misapply the law to please a select few or to achieve de facto zoning regulations that our community has consistently rejected.

While I agree with his statement, I would have preferred him to say something like:

I have a moral right to use my property as I choose, so long as I respect the mutual rights of others. The purpose of city government is to protect that right, and the city has blatantly and egregiously done the opposite.

Regardless, I applaud Buckhead's lawsuit and efforts to gain justice, even if it will mean an increase in my taxes. The harm done to them was perpetrated in my name, and I want no part of it. And perhaps (though I doubt) the city will learn a lesson.


They're Not Nationwide, They're H-BAD*
The Houston Black American Democrats (H-BAD)--a local Democratic "club"--has apparently been trading endorsements for cash. Of course, such "you scratch my back" deals have been going on for a long time in politics, but the targets of these shake downs are judicial candidates. According to the Chronicle, some have wondered if such "donations" might violate ethics laws:

One candidate asked too many questions. Priscilla Walters, a candidate for Probate Court 3, said when an e-mail she wrote to a friend, asking if the amount was too pricey, got back to H-BAD members, they rescinded her endorsement in a name-calling missive broadcast over Carl Whitmarsh's extensive e-mail list.

While an H-BAD spokesman said that Walters was trying to "sabotage" the "club's" efforts to get out the vote, apparently H-BAD thought so little of her candidacy that they were willing to revoke their endorsement. It makes one wonder which is more important to H-BAD: qualified candidates or raising cash. I think that their actions tell us.

*Apologies to Houston's ZZ Top for paraphrasing the lyrics from their song "I'm Bad, I'm Nationwide".


Humiliating Algore
I don't like the entire premise behind the Nobel Peace Prize. But an effort to strip Algore and the United Nations Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change of their prize from 2007 is worth supporting. (HT: Barry Klein) I seriously doubt that this petition will have any impact, but the thought of humiliating Algore was too much to resist.

The petition includes a request that the prize be awarded to Irena Sendler, a woman who risked her life during WWII to ultimately rescue more than 2,500 Jewish children from the Nazis. Sendler was a candidate for the prize in 2007 that Gore and the IPCC won. Other nominations can be made in the comments section. I nominated the Ayn Rand Institute, which, in advocating reason, individual rights, and capitalism, has done more to promote peace in the past 2 decades than any other organization or living individual.


The Texas "Pole Tax"
The Texas Supreme Court will review the constitutionality of the state's "pole tax" which charges patrons of strip clubs $5 to fund a program for victims of sexual offenses. Interestingly, the strip clubs are claiming that their First Amendment rights are being violated by the tax. I am not an expert on the activities that occur in a strip club, but I doubt that a lot of speech is involved.

In an example of non-objectivity in both science and journalism, the Chronicle reports:

To defend the law, the government has been forced to argue that strip clubs lead to greater violence against women, a claim for which there is no evidence, Furlow said. Under such logic, he added, R-rated movies could be taxed because of the violence sometimes depicted in them.

Robert Jensen, a journalism professor at the University of Texas at Austin who teaches media law and ethics, acknowledged that it is difficult to prove a link between strip clubs and violence against women.

“But the fact that research doesn't allow for those causal links doesn't mean that the sexual exploitation industry is not part of an environment that supports and undergirds sexual violence,” he said. [emphasis added]

Even though research does not show a causal connection strip clubs and sexual violence, defenders of the law insist that one must exist. Why? Because "justice" demands it, because they want there to be such a connection. And when the facts do not support their desires, the facts are to be discarded.

This is not surprising, given the fact that Jensen has called for a new model for journalists--"journalism for justice":

Mass media have a moral responsibility to produce journalism for justice and storytelling for sustainability...

In a healthy educational institution with real academic freedom, we should encourage a diversity of approaches to complex questions.

According to Jensen, journalists should not simply report the facts. They should also promote a particular agenda, an agenda that Jensen declares should be animated by questioning and opposing the rich and powerful.

Certainly journalists must be selective--they cannot report every fact connected to a particular story. But that selectivity must be guided by reality and and reason--it must be objective--not one's whims or political agenda.

Laughter of the Anguished

Last week a reader who wished to remain anonymous left comments to two older posts. Both comments were devoid of intellectual content, which usually results in an automatic rejection (I moderate all comments). However, I did find them interesting in what they reveal. I allowed one of the comments, but the second was rejected because it contained a personal attack on someone I admire and value immensely.

The comment that I allowed was in response to "Blaming the Victim". This post addressed the city revoking a permit for Spec's Liquor to operate a store on Washington Avenue. The comment follows:

"The law required that Spec's seek permission to open a store, which is what is truly offensive about this story. Spec's--and indeed every business--has a moral right to operate where and how it chooses " [this was quoted from my post]

that's hilarious! LOL, you really believe this nonsense ? What a loon you must be.

This is what was offered in response to my moral defense of an individual's right to live for his own sake, to seek his own values, to pursue his own happiness. Rather than point out an error on my part, or faulty reasoning, or have the intellectual honesty to state his own position on the issue, Mr. Anonymous resorted to laughter. "You are wrong," he said, "because ha, ha, ha."

This is not a very compelling argument. Indeed, it is not an argument. It is an attempt to "prove" one's point by calling names, as if someone who takes ideas seriously would find such childish tactics convincing. But then, Mr. Anonymous does not take ideas seriously, as evidenced by the comment that I rejected.

In response to "A Pyrrhic Victory" (which addressed the developers of the Ashby High Rise finally receiving permission to proceed with the project), he wrote (in part):

What a complete load of theoretical BS. It's sad that developers were ever given permission in the first place to do anything more than private homes there. It was outrageous and pure short sighted greed to try to stick all they wanted there, so no tears over the loss on their gamble.

Again, rather than address any of the points I raised, our brave Mr. Anonymous retorts with an angry dismissal. Anonymity may provide him with courage, but it certainly has not endowed him with intellectual prowess. Given the actual facts of the situation, his comments make little sense--the site has long been an apartment complex. In addition, while not repeated here, his comment contained an ad hominem "argument".

Perhaps more interesting (and disgusting) is the apparent glee that he feels towards the suffering of others. That Buckhead Development--Ashby's developers--had to spend years groveling at the feet of petty city bureaucrats for permission to use their property is apparently a source of pleasure to my anonymous reader. That he gloats when entrepreneurs are shackled by city officials speaks volumes about his character.

Such hatred and hostility is not natural--by "natural" I mean appropriate for man's life. Such hatred is not aimed at a criminal, but at the men and women who create the values upon which our lives depend. Such hostility is ultimately aimed at life itself.

Many years ago such depravity would have led me to hope that some ill-fortune would befall the advocates of such ideas as a measure of justice. And then one day I realized that justice was being served. Despite whatever material trappings or prestige such individuals might enjoy, they are not and cannot be happy individuals. No matter what facade they present to others, their soul is wracked with envy and anger. Their laughter is a mask for their own anguish.

Hans' Bier Haus Punch

Less than 2 miles from the site of the proposed Ashby High Rise, another controversy involving a high rise and a neighbor has erupted. In 2006 residents of the 2520 Robinhood Condominiums
allegedly began throwing objects at the patrons of a neighboring bar, Hans' Bier Haus, from their parking garage. Residents complained about noise from the bar, and apparently they thought that throwing eggs and produce would somehow diminish the noise. (Here is a news flash: It won't. It is likely to provoke more noise, like, "Hey jackass, why are you throwing squash at me?") According to the Chronicle:

The unpleasantness peaked December 13. The bar laid out a Sunday night holiday buffet and had Ronnie Renfrow's 15-piece big band set to play. But water cascading from the garage rained down on patrons, the band and its electrical equipment. Kellogg said a trumpet player slipped in the water and broke a finger.

Cave [bar co-owner Bill Cave] said in court papers that he went to the condo and was eventually successful in turning off the water at a faucet on a condo's porch. In the process, Frederick [Art Frederick, the general manager of the condos] said an angry Cave took the concierge by his tie, broke his phone and forced his way up in the elevator. And they have videotape of it all, Frederick said.

This is the type of dispute that is really quite easy to resolve if one applies the proper principles. (It shouldn't need to be said, but physically assaulting others by dumping water on bar patrons or attacking a concierge is not the proper principle.) Unfortunately, those principles appear to be as foreign to those involve in BierGate as they are to those fighting Ashby. In both cases, property rights are under attack. In both cases, identifying, recognizing, and protecting property rights provides a very clear resolution.

I have addressed the Ashby situation previously. In regard to the Bier Haus, the principle to apply is "coming to the nuisance". The Bier Haus existed prior to the construction of the condos--the residents "came to the nuisance". The prior use of the bar's owners established their right to continue to use the property for that purpose.

A point of contention is that the bar owners have changed their use (that is my interpretation, as those involved seem to be oblivious to the proper principles) since the construction of the condos. According to the general manager of the condos, the bar has increased its noise levels, becoming a "Friday night rodeo".

If this is true, the condo residents have a valid claim. If the Bier Haus was, for example, a quiet piano bar and one day it began hosting AC/DC tribute bands on its patio, its use has clearly changed. The condo was not built next to an establishment that blasted arena rock; it was built next to a cozy neighborhood watering hole that featured twinkling ivory keys.

In the context of nuisance complaints, first use establishes the right to continue using one's property for that purpose. Those who come later cannot complain that your use is a nuisance, for they "came to the nuisance". This principle applies to countless situations. One cannot build a home next to an existing oil refinery, or a muffler shop, or a truck depot, or a bar, and then complain about the noise. One could have avoided the nuisance by building elsewhere, by not "coming to the nuisance". (Similarly, if one is offended by nude women, don't go into a "gentleman's club".)

I hasten to add that nuisance complaints cannot be made arbitrarily. The fact that someone objects to a particular activity does not make that activity a nuisance. An objective threat to one's well-being, one's property, or the "peaceful enjoyment" of one's property must exist. Exactly where the line should be drawn can be complex, but blasting loud music at 3 A.M., or conducting target practice in your back yard (assuming you live in a subdivision), or sending noxious fumes over your fence are objective threats to your neighbors. Painting your shutters hot pink, or growing corn in your front yard, or erecting a monument to Elvis in your car port might be obnoxious, but they are not a threat to anyone's well-being or property.

I do not know enough of the facts in this particular situation to say whether the condo residents came to the nuisance, or whether the Bier Haus has changed its use. But that is the important point in this dispute. As with Ashby, all that is required is the application of the principle of property rights. That, and the residents of the condos need to start eating their veggies rather than throwing them at bar patrons, or Ma Parker will get on their case.

Kiss My Ashby

Monday's Chronicle contained an OpEd titled "What Ashby high-rise teaches us" from two members of the Stop Ashby High-Rise Task Force. Unfortunately, they have learned the wrong lesson:

Southampton and Boulevard Oaks surround the site and are protected by deed restrictions, but the Ashby high-rise site is unrestricted. And there are dozens of established Houston neighborhoods whose deed restrictions have lapsed or that were never protected by deed restrictions. Deed restrictions, by themselves, have been demonstrated time and again to be a weak and inefficient mechanism for protecting neighborhoods.

Such a claim ignores the entire context in which deed restrictions are enacted and enforced. Because their deed restrictions do not provide the protection they desire, they dismiss the entire concept.

Deed restrictions are voluntary, contractual agreements between property owners. They limit how a property owner may use his property, and those limitations are consensual. By their very nature, deed restrictions will have boundaries--they extend only to the edge of the neighborhood which has enacted them. Properties beyond the neighborhood are not subject to those deed restrictions.

The residents of Southampton and Boulevard Oaks do not find this acceptable. They are unhappy that the voluntary agreement to which they subscribed is not applied to those who did not agree to it. In response, they seek to use government coercion to impose their desires upon the Ashby developers.

The article concludes:

Recent surveys show that large majorities of Houstonians want better land-use protection for their neighborhoods. Isn't it finally time for the city of Houston to decide that the fate of its neighborhoods cannot be left to the hubris of irresponsible developers? Isn't it finally time for rules to protect the interests of both developers and homeowners?

The authors imply that because "large majorities of Houstonians" allegedly want "better" land-use controls, the only solution is the heavy hand of government. They imply that the city must dictate how property may and may not be used, and any use contrary to the city's mandates should be a criminal act. This, we are to believe, will protect the interests of both developers and homeowners.

While decrying the hubris of the Ashby developers, the authors display their own patronizing arrogance:

No one except the Ashby developers believes that this makes sense. Even Bob Lanier, the tireless champion of Houston developers, agrees this project is misplaced.

Since no one--not even former mayor and developer Bob Lanier--thinks the project makes sense, then the city has a right to force the Ashby developers to act contrary to their own judgment. Imagine what the world would be like if that same attitude had been taken towards Thomas Edison, Henry Ford, and the Wright brothers. Whether the project makes sense is not an issue for the authors, city officials, or anyone other than the developers to decide.

The proper purpose of government is the protection of individual rights, including property rights. Government's purpose is to create and protect a social environment in which individuals can act according to their own judgment in the pursuit of their own values. But nobody--including government--has a moral right to force anyone to act contrary to his own choice (so long as he respects the mutual rights of others).

Apparently, the only lesson the "stop Ashby" gang has learned is that they do not have enough political muscle. And so they seek to enlist like-minded thugs from around the city to join them in their crusade to clamp down on anyone who has the hubris to go against the mob.

The great innovators and independent thinkers of history did not succumb to the mindless threats of the hordes. Christopher Columbus, Robert Fulton, and Ayn Rand did not surrender their own vision merely because some authority did not see the truth that they saw. They simply sought the freedom to pursue that truth. They did not want or need the permission of others to determine what to believe, what values to pursue, or what actions to take.

The developers of Ashby believe that their project makes economic sense. If they are wrong, their project will go bankrupt, their reputation will be damaged, and they will suffer the consequences of their decisions. Nobody--not Bob Lanier, not the city of Houston, not the meddling residents of nearby neighborhoods--has a right to make that decision for them. And I sincerely hope that they develop the courage to tell anyone who tries to do so to "kiss my Ashby".

They Don't Wear No Britches

The law suit between residents of 1717 Bissonnet (the Ashby High Rise) and home owners in Southamptom is scheduled to go to court next week. Residents are suing over alleged nudist activities in the ritzy neighborhood, which they claim they cannot avoid seeing when looking out of their windows. Residents further claim that since completion of the high rise in 2012 they have attempted to meet with Southampton residents to discuss their differences, but their efforts have been rebuffed.

Home owners in Southampton, who had fought the construction of the "Tower of Traffic", are claiming that they have a right to do as they please on their own property. "If I want to prance around in my back yard wearing nothing but my birthday suit, I have a right to do so," said one Southampton home owner. "Who do these people think they are, trying to tell me what I can do on my own property?"

A spokesman for the Southampton Civic Club acknowledged that neighborhood residents had previously tried to dictate how Buckhead Development used its property when the high rise was in the planning stages. For years residents had twisted the arms of city officials to delay construction of the 23-story building. "That was then, this is now," the well-tanned spokesman said as he sipped on coffee purchased at Java Joe's, which is located on the ground floor of the multi-use high rise. (In keeping with the new blogger guidelines, I am obligated to disclose the fact that I have received no compensation or other considerations for mentioning Java Joe's. But if the non-existent coffee shop in the non-existent high rise would like to send me a few bucks, I will be more than happy to accept them.)

A message left on my answering machine claimed that Southampton has long been a haven for nude gardeners. It was difficult to make out the exact message, but it sounded something like, "They been digging in the dirt without no britches fer years." I would have dismissed a message left in a raspy voice that could only be traced to a phone booth, but I also received written collaboration. A hand-written note, which you can see above, was left on my windshield while I was visiting Rice University. (And the people at blogHouston wonder where the good investigative reporting is in Houston.)

Mayor Greenjeans, who had vowed that the "Ashby High Rise" would never be built, chuckled at the irony of the situation. "The Southampton residents had claimed that the high rise would block their view, and now they are giving the high rise residents a view," he joked to a bewildered pre-school class that was touring city council chambers. "It just shows that you shouldn't count your eggs until the chickens come home to roost."

Council member Andy Cumberbund, who represents Southampton, was more philosophical (but equally unintelligible): "What we have here is a classic case of two different groups with opposing viewpoints. This is precisely the type of dispute that should be resolved in a court of law, complete with a judge, a gaggle of attorneys, and a lady who types real fast."

Southampton residents have responded to the lawsuit in much the same way that they originally responded to the planned high rise. They have held several clothing optional rallies at nearby Poe Elementary, established a web site at www.SouthamptonGardenersHaveARightToDoWhatTheyWantToDoInTheirOwnYards.org, and littered their neighborhood with signs. They have set up lemonade stands at major intersections near the neighborhood in an effort to raise money for their legal fees.

The trial promises to be as amusing as the Southampton residents' sanctimonious assault on the rights of Buckhead Development. In the meantime, residents of the high rise are threatening to post videos on YouTube.

Buckhead's Sanction

Sunday's Chronicle contained an OpEd article from Kevin Kirton, one of the principals of Buckhead Investment Partners. (Buckhead is the developer of the project at 1717 Bissonnet, which I and others have referred to as the "Ashby High Rise".) The article demonstrates precisely what I argued against in last week's open letter to Kevin and his partner--the sanction of the victim.

In the article, Kevin calls for "predictable rules" governing development in Houston, and points out that the city presently has such rules. The problem is, he argues, is that those rules are applied unfairly and unevenly. I would agree that developers, and indeed all businessmen, need objective rules under which to operate. However, the very nature of the rules to which Kevin refers cannot be applied fairly, evenly, and objectively.

The principle underlying those rules is that government has a "right" to regulate the actions of developers, that developers may act only with the permission of city officials. The developer's actions then, are not determined by his judgment, but by that of city bureaucrats. As evidence, consider Kevin's own words:

Here's some background. We finally received initial approval after 11 attempts, which were necessary because the city wanted a result that was unattainable without arbitrarily applying the existing rules. After first determining that traffic was the only potential regulatory mechanism, the city eventually contrived a “trip number” that was totally unsupported by any nationally recognized traffic engineering standards.

Having ceded to the city the "right" to determine what standards must be met, Kevin can only complain when those standards are arbitrary. Having accepted the premise that he must first secure government permission to build, he can only complain that the verdict is unfair or uneven. He cannot complain that it is morally wrong--which it is.

Kevin claims that the city ignored its own rules because of "a few influential constituents." Certainly, political considerations have played a significant role in the city's opposition to his project. But this shouldn't come as a surprise.

City officials do not operate in a vacuum. Eager to secure votes they exchange political favors for campaign support. And if government has the "right" to regulate and dictate to businesses, they will ultimately do the bidding of their constituents. Just ask Spec's Liquor or the sign industry.

City officials will justify their mandates and prohibitions on the grounds of the "public welfare" or the "common good" or something similar. But the public does not speak with one voice (as the Ashby project amply demonstrates) and city officials must decide whose voice they will follow. And despite their claims, they will typically be guided by political expediency--by the loudest, most persistent voice (as the Ashby project amply demonstrates).

The only moral and practical solution is to recognize and protect property rights, completely, consistently, and without exception. This is the only truly objective, fair, and predictable rule that is possible or necessary.

When property rights are recognized and protected, issues such as Ashby simply do not occur. "Influential constituents" cannot lobby government officials for special favors or laws directed at one individual because government officials cannot violate the property rights of citizens. Government officials cannot establish arbitrary standards for using one's property--property rights sanction one's freedom to act without government permission.

If Kevin truly wants predictable rules for development, he should call for the city to recognize and protect his property rights. Anything less leaves him and his partner vulnerable to further controls and arbitrary standards from the city.

An Open Letter to Buckhead Investment Partners

Update note: Buckhead Investment Partners is the developer of the proposed Ashby High Rise.

Dear Matthew and Kevin,

For more than two years you have suffered a gross injustice at the hands of the city of Houston. The city has placed barrier after arbitrary barrier in your path, forcing you to spend valuable time, money, and resources in an attempt to use your property as you choose.

You are not alone in suffering injustice at the hands of the city. As two recent examples, Spec's Liquor was forced to close a store and the sign industry faces a growing litany of regulations that threaten its very existence.

In each instance the victims have sanctioned the city's actions. While you, Spec's, and the sign industry have challenged the details of the city's controls, you have not challenged the city's right to enact such controls. You have ceded the premise that you may use your property only with the city's permission, rather than by right. You have ceded the moral high ground to the city, and can only complain when those controls go "too far".

You--as well as Spec's and the sign industry--must withdraw your sanction. You must declare that you have a moral right to use your property as you choose, so long as you respect the mutual rights of others. You must state the fundamental issue--the sanctity of individual rights, including property rights--clearly, openly, and explicitly. You must demand that your opponents justify the violation of your rights. They can't.

While the city has been erecting barriers in your path, it is only acting as a proxy for the Southamptom and Boulevard Oaks civic clubs. The home owners in these neighborhoods have exerted political pressure on city officials, who have responded by declaring your proposed project illegal. They have depended on your sanction for their success. They have depended on you accepting their premises.

Fundamentally, they believe that might makes right. They believe that the majority has a right to determine what actions others may take. They believe that they have a right to determine how you use your property. They believe that you must sacrifice your interests and values for the "common good", and they will determine what constitutes that "good". And if you do not do so "voluntarily" they believe that they have a right to use force to compel your compliance.

If you think that this is an exaggeration, consider what will happen if you--or Spec's or the sign industry--defy the city's orders. You will face fines, jail, or both. Sooner or later someone with a gun will show up to demand that you act as the city--i.e., the home owners--demands.

So long as you accept the premise that you must comply with the dictates of others, that the city has a right to control your business and your life, such threats will always loom over you.

The leading candidates for mayor have all endorsed more restrictive controls over land-use. All have stated opposition to your project. They will seek more control over you and your business. And they will be successful so long as you continue to sanction their right to do so.

You have built your business by acting on your own judgment, which is your moral right. Nobody--including government--has a right to force you to act contrary to that judgment. Indeed, government's proper purpose is the protection of your freedom to act according to your own rational conclusions.

You must do more than challenge the city's edicts. You must challenge the principle that says that they may even make such edicts. You are not chattel, whose dreams, business, and life can be disposed of by others, no matter their number. When you can state that openly and proudly, you will disarm your opponents. Morality is your most powerful weapon. Use it.

Defending Peter Brown (Sort of)

Mayoral candidate Peter Brown has reportedly spent about $2.4 million of his own money to finance his candidacy. Rumors are that he is willing to spend millions more. Not surprisingly, this is raising eye-brows and accusations--both implicit and explicit--that he is trying to buy the office.

I must admit that spending enormous sums of one's own money in order to secure an elected office raises some questions in my mind. Presumably, someone with enough money to drop millions on an election has some financial acumen. So I would assume that they spend their money with the intent of getting a reasonable return on the investment. But what return is there from holding an elected office?

The more cynical among us might think they do it for financial gain. While undoubtedly many politicians gain wealth as a result of their positions, I don't think that that is why most people run for office. And certainly not those who already have a boat load of money.

Holding a political office offers something that no position in the private sector offers--power. And more specifically, political power. While some might argue that businessmen have power, such claims evade the distinction between political power and economic power:

The difference between political power and any other kind of social “power,” between a government and any private organization, is the fact that a government holds a legal monopoly on the use of physical force.

I think it is power-lust that drives most individuals to "buy" a political office--they seek the ability to impose their views and values upon others by force. I can, and have, made a strong case that this is what Peter Brown seeks.

I seriously doubt that Annise Parker--who has questioned Brown's spending--would turn down $2.4 million in donations. But Parker, like most local politicians, would need to acquire such financial support in small chunks. To raise $2.4 million in $25, $50, and $100 increments requires a lot of donors, which is very difficult. Since Parker hasn't beaten Brown in the financial department, she will try to beat him verbally by calling his spending into question. She implies that there is something morally wrong with putting one's money where one's mouth is. There isn't. In fact, I wish more politicians would put some of their own "skin" in the game.

Compared to Gene Locke, Parker has been relatively mild regarding this issue. Last week Locke unleashed one of his pit bulls, Jew Don Boney, who claimed that Brown is trying to buy the black vote:

“Peter Brown is spending millions of dollars in this mayor's race because he can't match Gene's longtime record of service,” former City Councilman Jew Don Boney, associate director of the Mickey Leland Center for World Hunger at Texas Southern University, says in the ad. [a radio ad] “But our community is not for sale."

Locke repeated this charge during Saturday night's mayoral debate and then upped the ante:

Mr. Brown is trying to buy the election, not just in the African-American community but across the city.

Here is a news flash for both Locke and Boney: You, and virtually every politician, buy votes by promising government favoritism to those who vote for you. What is your campaign primarily about? It is about appealing to certain groups--groups that hope to benefit if you are in office. Groups that will exchange political support for government favors. If you truly think that votes aren't for sale, then either you have not been paying attention or you are more intellectually dishonest than I thought.

The truth is, Parker and Locke lust after the same position as Brown, and for very similar reasons. Brown just happens to have the money to finance his campaign without begging every Tom, Juan, and Jew Don for a donation or endorsement.

In case I haven't made it clear over the past year, I'm no fan of Peter Brown. But how he spends his money is no business of mine. I only wish he would extend the same courtesy to me and other Houstonians.

You see, Peter Brown wants to tell me (and you) what I can do with my property. He wants to develop a "plan" for the city and then shove it down my throat. He wants to continue Bill White's "greening" of Houston and make sure that I caulk my windows and insulate my attic (not literally). He wants to be the maestro of Houston's economy, deciding which industries will thrive and which will not. He wants to expand the power and scope of city government, and somehow he's going to do it without raising taxes.

Politicians love to tell us that they won't raise our taxes. What they don't tell us is that their proposals will make our life more difficult. They don't tell us that we will have to spend more money when we go shopping because they outlawed efficient and reasonably priced advertising (such as billboards and "attention-getting devices"). They don't tell us that they are going to destroy jobs by making it more difficult to do business, and thereby impose more costs on taxpayers because those same politicians demand that we help those in need.

Perhaps Brown can enact his proposals without actually raising taxes. But his proposals will cost us more, in time and in money. Developers and builders will have to spend more time groveling at the feet of city bureaucrats to secure permission to pursue projects in accordance with Brown's "blueprint". The costs and delays associated with this boot licking will be passed on to consumers in the form of higher rents, higher housing costs, and a higher cost of doing business.

If Brown has his way, projects such as the Ashby High Rise will be impossible. And the affordable housing provided by such projects will never materialize. Many of the victims of this injustice will never know that the reason they must spend more for housing, or endure a longer commute, is because of the city's policies.

And to address traffic congestion, Brown will force us to pay for more light rail, despite the fact that it seems to attract more accidents than riders.

So, while Brown is eagerly spending his own money in his campaign for mayor, he is doing so to attain the power to subsequently spend my money and your money. He can do what he wants with his money. I greatly resent any thought on his part that he has a right to spend mine.

The Mob versus Ashby

In its seemingly endless quest to bring more government control over our lives, on Wednesday the Chronicle chimed in on the city's approval of the latest plans for the Ashby High Rise. In a ploy typical of statists, they cloud the issue with an absurd claim:

The Ashby Street high-rise has become the latest test case in a town without
zoning pitting the rights of single-family homeowners and their civic groups
against condominium developers.

The paper fails to tell us what "rights" are in conflict, though the editorial does state that the high rise is "an out-of-scale project that will significantly impact the residential neighborhoods around it." We can only conclude that, since the homeowners in the surrounding neighborhoods don't like the project, their "rights" are somehow being violated.

This equates rights with desires, and destroys the entire concept of rights. The frustration of the homeowners desires, we are to believe, is a violation of their rights.

In truth, a right is a sanction to freedom of action in a social setting. A right places boundaries on the actions of others--they may not use force to interfere with your actions, just as you may not use force to interfere with their actions. Rights apply only to individuals, and they apply to all individual equally.

Absent a proper definition of rights, the political process is thrown open to pressure groups, each competing to influence the decisions of politicians and bureaucrats. Not surprisingly, the Chronicle does not question this:

For a while it seemed a potent alliance of civic groups representing affluent
and influential residents of Southhampton and other tony Rice University area
neighborhoods might be able to thwart the planned construction of the
residential tower and associated commercial complex. Indeed, if this powerful
interest group could not effectively combat what it perceived as inappropriate
redevelopment on the border of its neighborhoods, what chance would poorer and
less politically connected residents in other parts of the city have?

In other words, if the rich and powerful could not throw their weight around, what hope is there for the "common man"? If those with political influence aren't able to use government coercion, then who can? The Chronicle provides the answer--"financial, real estate and developer interests". In other words, a group with even more political clout. Having tossed individual rights under the bus, the paper can only whine about which group is more effective in influencing politicians.

Despite the Chronicle's claims, there is no conflict between the rights of the developers and the rights of the homeowners. Each has a moral right to use his property as he chooses, so long as he does not use force against others. But the Chronicle and the homeowners do not like the choices being made by the developers. They cannot tolerate the idea that someone might make a decision that they dislike. And they are more than willing to use the power of government to impose their views on others. Like school-yard bullies, they believe that might makes right.

The size of the gang does not determine the propriety of its actions. Civil society is not a contest to see who can amass the largest arsenal of political capital and influence.

A Pyrrhic Victory

On Friday the city of Houston gave the developers of the Ashby High Rise permission to proceed. The necessary permits were approved after more than two years and eleven attempts by the developers to meet the city's demands. The developers aren't entirely pleased with this development, telling the Chronicle:

We're still not necessarily pleased with that result because we did have to eliminate uses that we felt made the project more appropriate for the location and enhanced its overall appeal. What the city has approved is not the best project we can build.

The entire story is a travesty. The fact that the developers even had to seek permission to use their property is a gross injustice. Now they will be forced to build a project that isn't what they desire--they must eliminate the retail and office space they had planned, as well as reduce the number of apartments in the building. What was originally proposed to be a mixed-use facility will now be an apartment building.

It is interesting that the city didn't even have the courtesy to inform the developers directly. The city issued a press release and allowed reporters to give the developers the "good" news.

At a time when many Houstonians, including a large number of government officials, are clamoring for denser development and more mixed-use projects, city officials have arbitrarily eliminated one such project.

The neighborhood associations who had fought Ashby aren't willing to give up. They have threatened a lawsuit to stop the project, which will force the developers to incur even further costs. Leslie Miller, who lives in a townhouse next to the site, said:

It's out of place for the neighborhood. It's very disappointing that the city doesn't have the tools at hand to prevent this from happening, not only in our neighborhood but in others throughout the city.

What Ms. Miller ignores is that government is an agency of force, and the only "tool" it has at hand is a gun. And it is a gun that the home owners in the area--with the help of city hall--have wielded in fighting the project. I suspect that the home owners would be extremely reticent to arm themselves and directly attack the developers. But they see nothing wrong with using government as their proxy.

The project approved by the city will likely be less financially appealing to the developers. The loss of retail and office space, along with the reduction in apartments, will certainly reduce their revenues. Their choice will be to absorb this loss, or raise the rents on the remaining spaces. If the former, the city has effectively stolen money from them. If the latter, the housing will be less affordable. In either case, the result will be economically harmful.

We can hardly call this a victory, for the rights of the developers have been under assault from the beginning. They were forced to grovel at the feet of city bureaucrats. They were required to spend their time completing paperwork to satisfy the city's arbitrary demands. They were compelled to act as the city dictated, rather than on the basis of their own judgment.

The Ashby High Rise is hardly the only example of the city placing arbitrary barriers in the way of businessmen. We have seen it with Spec's Liquor. We have seen it with the sign ordinance. We have seen it with tags for taco trucks. In each instance--and numerous others--the government has declared actions that violate the rights of nobody to be illegal.

Mayoral candidates Annise Parker and Peter Brown criticized the city's decision and if elected would combat a repeat of the Ashby controversy by enacting new land-use regulations. Both would continue, and perhaps accelerate, the city's growing anti-business attitude.

The City's Dilemma: Ashby Versus Rail

Government interventions into the economy almost always have unintended consequences. City officials are discovering this, as their attempt to stop the Ashby High Rise is now potentially creating problems with their desire to mandate walkable "urban corridors" along the proposed rail lines.

In their eagerness to appease noisy home owners near the Ashby location, city officials made changes to a city document known as the Infrastructure Design Manual to prevent high-density developments from negatively impacting traffic on nearby streets. According to the Chronicle:

City Council members and speakers at a public hearing Wednesday said certain provisions in the design manual conflict with the goals of the proposed urban transit corridors ordinance.

In other words, the city's efforts to stop one high-density development now threaten other high-density developments. The city isn't content to let individuals make decisions about the use of their property, and in their haste to mandate what is and isn't acceptable, city officials are now caught between two conflicting goals.

This is the inevitable result when government rejects the principle of individual rights--it acts on the expediency of the moment. When individuals must seek permission to act, government becomes a battleground as competing groups assert that their cause is in the "public interest" and the rights of others are expendable. Such conflicts can only be resolved by appeasing the gang that exerts the most political influence today. And if today's "solution" conflicts with tomorrow's goal--well, they'll just cross that bridge when they get to it and start the process over again.

Without principles, man is reduced to the range of the moment. Each issue is regarded as new and unique, disconnected from yesterday and irrelevant to tomorrow. As Ayn Rand wrote in "Credibility and Polarization":

Concrete problems cannot even be grasped, let alone judged or solved, without reference to abstract principles.

Andy Icken, deputy director of the Department of Public Works and Engineering has suggested that the city tweak the language of Infrastructure Design Manual:

Icken said he will work with Marlene Gafrick, Houston’s planning and development director, to add language to the transit corridors ordinance clarifying that reduced automobile traffic is likely along corridors where people will be riding trains. That should reduce the need for any traffic mitigation, Icken said.

Which means, if we just change some words in an ordinance we can make the problem go away. All we need to do is assert that people will ride trains. But Icken's wishes will not change the fact that the number of people using light rail is well below Metro's projections. Icken's desires, no matter how he expresses them, will not change reality.

Of course, the city will not allow something as "archaic" as individual rights to impede its plans. It has serious work to do, and if the rights of a few recalcitrant individuals must be trampled, so be it.

If the city truly wants to resolve this problem, it must begin by recognizing and protecting individual rights, including property rights. It must remove arbitrary obstacles to development by repealing mandates and prohibitions on land-use. By recognizing and protecting individual rights, the city can solve this dilemma, today and in the future.

Turf Wars

Apparently, city officials are among those who believe that if we put lipstick on a pig nobody will notice that we have a rather ugly date. They want to tighten development standards in the city, and according to the Chronicle, want to avoid enacting zoning.

Regardless of what they call it, or the details of this latest push for more land-use controls, the fact remains that such restrictions on the use of property are immoral and a violation of individual rights. The latest proposal calls for designating the area between The Loop and The Beltway as urban, which will bring density restrictions into play in those areas.

If the lives of human beings would not be negatively impacted by this, the hypocrisy would be hilarious. On one hand the city is pushing to reduce commutes by shoving light rail down our throats, and on the other hand they act to extend commutes by prohibiting denser development. They want to have our cake, and eat it too.

Much of the justification behind the new standards is to "protect neighborhoods". But what is the nature of this "protection"? Restrictions on development necessarily compel individuals to act differently from how they would freely choose. Which means, some individuals will be forced to act for the alleged benefit of other individuals. Which means, while neighborhoods are being "protected", the rights of individuals are being trampled by the city government.

We are constantly told that we need such regulations to make Houston more "livable". We aren't told for whom the city will be more livable, or by what standard. It certainly won't be more livable for the individuals whose lives are wrecked by government restrictions. It certainly won't be more livable for those who plans are destroyed because they do not conform to the government's mandates. It certainly won't be more livable for the actual human beings who are forced to put aside their own interests and desires in deference to "neighborhoods".

The champions of these causes posit themselves as humanitarians who simply want to make our city better. They brush aside principles, believing that we can learn from the mistakes of other cities and enact "smarter" controls. They refuse to question their basic premises, instead arguing that their gang can can do it better.

The success of redevelopment inside The Loop is testimony to the fact that many Houstonians want denser development. But this clashes with the desires of many current home owners, who seem to believe that they have a right to maintain the character of their neighborhood at the point of a gun. They do not hesitate to use government coercion against others, ignoring the fact that others could demand similar actions against them.

I can empathize with the desire to retain a neighborhood's character. However, civilized individuals resolve conflicts through reason and persuasion, not through coercion. Civilized individuals recognize and respect the rights of other individuals, and do not join noisy gangs to pressure City Hall to enact restrictions on others.

That these turf wars are carried out in the light of day by middle-class Houstonians does not change their nature or grant them moral legitimacy. They are no different from the battles between the Southwest Cholos and La Primera. And like those gangs, the advocates of "neighborhood protection" will "mess you up" if step out of line and show them disrespect. Just ask Buckhead Development.

Visionaries and Houston Housing

On Monday, a local blogger listed three factors that determine where and what type of development occurs in Houston:

• Government policy
• Market forces
• Developer conservatism

He notes that developers often lag consumer demands/ desires:

Thus it’s really proper to think of the supply of housing types and neighborhood styles as a lagging indicator of the demand for housing types and neighborhood styles. If everyone decided tomorrow that Tuscan was out and Tudor was back in, homebuilders would continue to build Tuscan until there was enough evidence that the trend back towards Tudor was solid.

I don't doubt the truth of this. It is true of many, if not most, industries. But why? And perhaps more importantly, how do businesses identify changing consumer tastes and desires? In other words, how will builders know that Tuscan is out and Tudor is in?


Let us consider housing in one small area of Houston--downtown. I lived downtown in the mid-1980's. At the time, there were only a handful of places to live--the Houston House and 2016 Main being the most significant. Today, there are dozens of options. This did not happen because of government policy. It did not happen because developers suddenly realized that converting buildings to residences would be successful.


It occurred because one man--Randall Davis--had a vision. He saw a need and he sought to satisfy it. He converted unused buildings into homes and started the downtown housing boom. He anticipated a demand, and when he proved his vision to be correct, others then followed.


This is the general trend in most industries--a visionary identifies a better product or service and offers it to the market. If his judgment is correct he (and consumers) benefits. And other producers then follow his lead. If he is wrong, he and his investors suffer the consequences. In short, the market determines if the visionary is correct or not.

To claim that demand creates supply is to reject Say's Law, which holds that supply creates demand. Or, as worded by James Mills:

[P]roduction of commodities creates, and is the one and universal cause which creates a market for the commodities produced.

In the context of the present discussion, developers (or at least one developer) created a supply of downtown housing. The demand then followed.

The visionary developer relies on his own judgment to determine what and where to build. By definition, he bucks the trend--he reaches a conclusion not shared by others. And he must rely on the independent judgment of consumers that his assessment is correct.

In Houston this process occurs with fewer government restrictions than other cities. Consequently, land uses change with relative ease. Developers can create supply without groveling at the feet of bureaucrats, trying to convince them that the developer's judgment is correct. This freedom is the primary cause of Houston's affordable and plentiful housing options.

A notable exception is the Ashby High Rise. The city government has prohibited the developers from acting according to their judgment. City officials have substituted their decisions for those of the developers and consumers. And they have used the power of law to enforce their decisions.

Ayn Rand regularly pointed out that government restrictions are, at root, an attack on the mind. They prohibit individuals from acting according to their own judgment, in the pursuit of their own values. More than other cities, Houston has respected the right of individuals exercise their own judgment and act accordingly. Houston has allowed developers like Randall Davis to be free. And all of us have benefited.

Eminent Domain in the Medical Center

I previously wrote about the use of eminent domain by the Texas Medical Center to seize land for an expansion. Now, the Texas legislature is considering a bill that will strip Houston's largest employer of most of its eminent domain powers. While this is certainly a good step, several local politicians are using HB 3709 to engage in political grandstanding.

Council member Anne Clutterbuck supports the measure because it will "protect" the nearby neighborhoods. Clutterbuck also used the "protection" argument in opposing the Ashby High Rise. Apparently, "protecting" neighborhoods is more important to Clutterbuck than protecting property rights.

Clutterbuck considers it wrong for the Medical Center to condemn homes, but it is not wrong for the city to erect arbitrary barriers to the construction of Ashby. Eminent domain is wrong because it initiates force and compels individuals to act contrary to their own judgment. The city's opposition to Ashby does exactly the same thing. Clutterbuck might attempt to justify her hypocrisy by arguing that in both instances she is working to "protect" neighborhoods, and therefore her position is consistent.

Such an argument is based on the premise that groups possess rights separate and distinct from the individuals comprising it. Such an argument holds that the group--the neighborhood--can violate the rights of other property owners.

Clutterbuck is hardly alone in taking such a stand. Annise Parker has also jumped into the fray. In a letter to Representative Dennis Bonnen, Chair of the Committee on Land and Resource Management, Parker wrote:

Allowing the TMC, or any other private venture, special authority to condemn property and override these deed restrictions threatens quality of life, neighborhood stability and individual property rights.

Parker, who also opposes the Ashby High Rise and supports preservation ordinances, obviously does not see such positions as a threat to "individual property rights". Apparently, it is acceptable for the city to use force against citizens, but unacceptable if a "private venture" does so. The truth is, the initiation of force is always immoral, and the number of individuals supporting its use does not change that fact.

The right to property is the right of use and disposal. It means that the owner can use his property as he chooses, so long as he respects the mutual right of others. Eminent domain, preservation ordinances, and the city's efforts to stop Ashby all prevent the respective property owners from acting in accordance with their judgment. Yet, neither Parker nor Clutterbuck sees this as a problem. Their mantra is "protect neighborhoods", and if they have to use a concept like "property rights" then so be it. But to them, "property rights" is a floating concept--they are unable to connect it to concrete situations.

Like most politicians, Parker and Clutterbuck present themselves as principled individuals. In truth, they are devoid of political principles. They deal with each situation on a "case by case" basis and engage in verbal gymnastics to justify their hypocrisy. They will assail the property rights of one individual while feigning support for the property rights of another.

A truly principled politician would not pander to noisy constituents. He would support and protect the rights of all individuals. A truly principled politician would be just like me.

I Have Rights, But You Don't

It is not uncommon for an individual or group to advocate contradictory political positions. Such a situation is currently on display in neighborhoods near the Medical Center. Neighborhoods in the area are fighting to defend their property rights while simultaneously fighting to violate the property rights of a local developer.

The neighborhoods of Center City, Southampton, and Boulevard Oaks are supporting legislation that will remove the ability of the Medical Center to use eminent domain to seize property. The Medical Center has possessed this power for fifty years, and in recent years has used it to condemn numerous houses and thereby violate the property rights of the owners of those homes. Home owners in the area fear that they could be next.

For more than a year, two of these neighborhoods—Southampton and Boulevard Oaks—have fought to stop Buckhead Development from constructing the Ashby High Rise. The neighborhoods have enlisted the help of City Hall to delay the project, and thereby have violated the property rights of the developers.

The right to property is the right to own, use, and dispose of material values. Ownership means control in both the use of a property and the terms of its sale. A property owner has a moral right to use his property as he judges, so long as he respects the mutual rights of others. Eminent domain violates the right to property by compelling the owner to sell against his desires and judgment. Similarly, City Hall (and the neighborhoods) is violating the rights of Buckhead by prohibiting the developer from using his property as he chooses.

These contradictory positions by the neighborhoods greatly undermines their credibility and their argument. They cannot effectively defend their own property rights while simultaneously advocating the violation of Buckhead’s rights. Rights are not relative—they apply to all individuals in all situations, no matter the expediency of the moment.

The purpose of government is the protection of individual rights, including property rights. The neighborhoods are correct and justified to fight the use of eminent domain—government power—to take their property. They are wrong and unjustified to use that same government power to stop Buckhead from using its property. In principle, if eminent domain is wrong so are the attempts to stop the Ashby High Rise by political means.

In advocating the violation of Buckhead’s property rights, the neighborhoods embrace the premise that government can and should control the use of private property. No matter how they try to justify their position on Ashby—the will of the people, the good of the community (or neighborhood), or anything similar—the same arguments can be used in favor of eminent domain. If it is justified to use force to stop Ashby for the purpose of “protecting” a neighborhood, it is justified to use force for the purpose of economic development.

In truth, the use of force to violate rights can never be justified. Such force compels an individual to act contrary to his own judgment and in defiance of his own values. To argue otherwise is to embrace the premise that might makes right—that political power supersedes morality and individual rights. One can then only quibble over the use of that power and the details of its implementation. And that is precisely the position the neighborhoods now find themselves in.

Consistency and justice demand that the neighborhoods support the right of Buckhead to build the Ashby High Rise. To do otherwise is to advocate that property rights can be violated if enough people, or those with political power, deem it proper. Yet that is the very principle that they are fighting in regard to eminent domain.

In fighting eminent domain the neighborhoods have morality and the principles of individual rights on their side. What they must realize is that those same principles apply to Buckhead. If they want to have their cake, they must let Buckhead have its cake. But if they choose to eat Buckhead’s cake, then they cannot complain when the Medical Center wants to eat theirs.

Business vs. the Individual

Last year I appeared on a panel to discuss a proposed high-rise project in Houston. I was the only panel member in favor of the project. The audience, which consisted primarily of home owners in a neighborhood near the project site, was almost unanimously opposed to the project. During the discussion, two comments made by audience members were interesting, and I think, quite revealing.

The first comment was that I didn't appear to care about individuals, only businesses. The comment caught me by surprise, and at the time I didn't have the luxury of giving it much thought. In retrospect, I have a better understanding of what provoked such a comment.

Throughout the discussion I had defended the right of the developer to use his property as he chose. The audience saw this as a battle between individuals and business. Since I sided with the business, they perceived that I don't care about individuals.

This is not an uncommon view. Businesses, and particularly large ones, are often seen as impersonal and exploitative. The marketplace is often viewed as a dog-eat-dog competition, in which businesses cut one another's throats for the privilege of robbing consumers. The individual is lost and helpless in this feeding frenzy.

Such a view--and its less extreme manifestations--is founded on a perverted view of a business transaction, and by implication, self-interest. It holds that advertising is manipulation, sales is deception, and self-interest is whim worship. It rejects the idea that individuals can voluntarily trade to mutual benefit.

This is the false alternative offered by altruists--one must sacrifice to others, or sacrifice others to oneself. Sacrifice is the given, and the only issue to be decided is who will sacrifice. In the context of the panel discussion, the audience saw the alternatives as sacrificing the developer, or sacrificing themselves.

The second comment comes from the same error. An audience member claimed that I was telling people how to live their lives. In a certain sense he was right--I was telling them to respect the property rights of the developer. But that isn't what he meant.

He saw my position as an attempt to impose my values on the home owners by force. Again, the false alternatives were--use force against the developer, or use force against the home owners. Even though I had explicitly rejected the use of force, he was unable to comprehend such an alternative. That individuals can, and should, interact voluntarily and with mutual consent was a completely foreign principle.

This error stems from the view that man's nature is that of a snarling, emotion-driven beast. Left to his own devices, he would rape and pillage without constraint. He would use and abuse others, limited only by the ability of others to use and abuse him.

Such a view is a confession of one's self-image, and I certainly witnessed its manifestation that night. On multiple occasions the audience tried to shout me down. One audience member asked for my removal from the panel. I was booed and insulted. The audience acted like a snarling, emotion-driven beast, willing to physically silence me because it did not like the words I spoke. Believing that man's nature is that of a brute, the audience acted like brutes.

But man is not, by nature, a brute. Man is not guided by innate ideas or seething passions, but by his mind. His choice is not to sacrifice or be sacrificed, but to think or to evade. Man does not, and cannot, live by force, but by reason.

Projecting their own self-image onto others, the advocates of regulation believe that laws are all that prevent us from raping and murdering. If laws work in regard to rape and murder, then other controls and regulations are equally justified. They advocate controlling man to prevent him from acting according to their view of his nature. And in the process, they prevent him from acting according to his true nature--that of a rational being. They try to subdue his emotions, and in the end, subjugate his reason.

Integrity and Eminent Domain

On Sunday, December 28 a front-page story in the Chronicle details the city's use of eminent domain to seize a tiny parcel of land on San Felipe. The city seized the land under the guise of widening the street, though only a small part of the land was necessary for that purpose. The city plans to use the remainder of the land as a pocket park.

While such seizures of private property can never be morally justified, this particular story involves much more than just the city's violation of property rights. It hints at political favoritism, back room deals, and conflicts of interest.

At the heart of the controversy are developers Ed Wulfe and the Hanover Company, Mayor White, and Councilman Peter Brown. Both Wulfe and Hanover executives have made significant contributions to both White and Brown. In addition, Councilwoman Pam Holm, whom the Chronicle says "was intimately involved in the decision to seize the land" has also received substantial contributions from both Wulfe and Hanover employees.

Brown's wife is an investor in the project Hanover plans to build adjacent to the seized land. Questions are now being raised about a conflict of interest regarding Brown, who voted for the seizure. Only time will tell whether White, Brown, or Holm did anything illegal and/ or are paying off donors.


The Chronicle reports that the contract between Wulfe and Hanover stated "that either Wulfe 'and/ or a governmental entity or agency'" acquire title to the property. Within two months of the seizure Wulfe and Hanover closed their deal.


White has defended seizing the entire property, rather than the small amount needed to widen the road. Often the city must pay for the entire value of a property, he argued, even if only a portion is seized. It only made sense to get the best "deal" possible for the city.Of course, seizing private property and paying less than fair market value is always a good "deal" for the city. It was only after the fact that White decided to use the remaining land for a park. The city's parks director--Joe Turner-- has testified that

the park idea was pushed by the Uptown Houston District, a local development board on which Ed Wulfe has a seat. Also on the board is John Nash, president of the Hanover company.

John Breeding, president of the Uptown Houston District, said that although Wulfe and Nash sit on the board, they were not involved with the decision to acquire the land.

It was the Uptown Development Authority, a related but separate quasi-governmental entity with a separate board, that sought to buy the land and use a portion for a park, he said.

This entire deal has a very strong odor of impropriety. The fact is, government officials used their power to seize land and that seizure benefited political supporters and one official's spouse. The fact is, Wulfe needed that property to close his $12.5 million deal with Hanover, and when the owners refused to sell that land for $1.4 million, the city seized the land. The fact is, the city offered to pay only $433,800 for the land--though Wulfe offered $1.4 million. The owners are now in litigation.

But this would not be any sweeter smelling if the details were different--if Wulfe and Hanover were not campaign donors. The city would have still seized private property, and that is always wrong, whether the seizure occurs to widen a road, build a park, or pay off political cronies.

What is ironic about this is that the project planned by Hanover is a high-density, mixed-use development similar to another project that the Mayor and many on city Council have opposed--the Ashby High Rise. Much of the Mayor's political support comes from the neighborhoods opposing Ashby, which certainly make questions about his motives understandable.

All involved claim that nothing illegal or improper occurred. The Chronicle states that Brown consulted the City Attorney about recusing himself from the vote to seize the property--after the vote. But whether explicit communications occurred to discuss this issue, all involved knew who and what was involved. And if they claim otherwise, we must question their competency to be city officials.

While the Mayor and Brown defend their integrity, the truth is, men in their position cannot act with integrity--they cannot be loyal to rational convictions and principles. Their jobs consist of making decisions that are implemented by force. Their decisions impose the values of some upon others. Their decisions compel some individuals to act contrary to their own convictions and principles.

If White and Brown really have a concern about their integrity, then they will begin by rejecting the premise that they--or anyone--has a right to compel others to act in a particular manner. They will reject the premise that might makes right. They will reject the premise that the alleged "public welfare" justifies seizing property and destroying lives. And they will embrace the moral right of each individual to his own life, liberty, and happiness. Of course, Buffalo Bayou is likely to freeze over before this occurs.

Well-Dressed Gangs

In 1994 the City of Houston established its anti-gang task force to deal with the growing problem of gangs within the city. According to the City's web site, the mission of the task force is:

The mission of the Mayor's Anti-Gang Office is to assist youth, young adults, families, and communities in the prevention of gang involvement and juvenile delinquency through partnerships with service organizations, law enforcement and criminal justice agencies, schools, and the general public.

This all sounds fine and dandy. Who could possibly be opposed to the "prevention of gang involvement and juvenile delinquency"? I know that I'm not opposed. I don't like gangs or juvenile deliquency. I don't like adult deliquency either.

Like many government programs, Houston's anti-gang task force is founded on a flawed principle. Indeed, despite this task force, the City of Houston is the biggest promoter of gang activity within Houston.

To begin, let's define "gang". Here are a few definitions I found:

A group of persons working together (Merriam-Webster)

A group of individuals, juvenile and or adult, who associate on a continuous basis, form an allegiance for a common purpose (allegedly this is the police definition)

A group of people who through the organization, formation, and establishment of an assemblage share a common identity (Wikipedia)

These definitions have something in common--a gang is a group of people who are seeking to achieve some common purpose. But if this is the definition, then a business or a sports team or the PTA could be called a gang-- each is a group of people working together to achieve a common goal. The concept of "gang" must also represent some other characteristic(s), because the concept is usually used in reference to those engaged in criminal activities. What then, is the differentia? What distinguishes gangs from other groups?

The distinguishing characteristic is the use of force as a modus operandi. The gang, unlike a business or a sports team or the PTA, uses force to achieve its ends. A business operates on the voluntary consent of its employees, customers, and vendors, as does a sports team and the PTA. A gang is unconcerned with consent, and compels individuals to act as it chooses. And this compulsion is used against both gang members and the public. It is the use of force, and specifically the initiation for force, that distinguishes a gang from other groups.

So, the definition of a gang is: a group of individuals who initiate force to achieve a common purpose. A gang believes that might makes right, that its desires can rightfully be achieved by force. It takes what it wants because it can. It compels others to act as it desires because it can. And it has no qualms about its methods. A gang does not recognize individual rights, including property rights.

Initiating force can take many forms. The most obvious is to hold a gun to someone's head. But one can also use others as a proxy. One can also use others to initiate the force, and government is the most common and socially acceptable proxy.

For example, when the anti-gang task force was first formed, the City quickly passed an ordinance that forced property owners to remove graffiti from their buildings or face fines. When the home owners in Southampton and Boulevard Oaks disliked the Ashby High Rise they rushed to City Hall to find methods to force the developers to change their plans. In each instance, some individuals acted in concert to achieve their ends through the use of force.

Some might believe that gangs only dress in droopy pants and are covered in tattoos. These are non-essentials. Gang members can also wear suits and ties. A gang is not defined by how it dresses, but by the ideas it embraces and how it acts. Middle-class Americans, acting together to compel others to act as they choose, are a gang. And they act on the same premises as the poor Latinos from the barrio who steal cars, tag buildings, and rob their neighbors.

Some might argue that the City's efforts to remove graffiti or stop the Ashby High Rise are just democracy in action. And they would be correct. However, democracy is nothing more than rule by a gang of the majority. Democracy means that the majority may do as it pleases because it is the majority, and it may use force to achieve its ends. The majority determines right and wrong--which means, might makes right. The dear citizens of Southampton may not like be equated with hoodlums, but their desires do not change the facts.

As Shakespeare might have written:

What's in a name? that which we call a gang
By any other name would be as mean;
So a gang would, were it not a gang call'd,
Retain that club and fury which it owes
Without that title.

How to Not Lose Jobs

According to the Greater Houston Partnership (via Loren Steffy), Houston is projected to lose about 45,700 jobs in 2009. Most of these losses are projected to be in construction and the oil industry.

There is a very easy solution to this: freedom. Freedom allows individuals to act according to their own rational judgment, so long as they respect the mutual rights of others. Freedom unleashes creativity and allows individuals to pursue their dreams. Freedom allows individuals to take chances and create jobs.

The solution is not another government program, but less government. Houstonians have enjoyed more freedom than most cities, and our economy has prospered more than most cities. If Houston really wants to set an example and be a leader, it should begin repealing laws that restrict individual freedom.

Banning attention-getting devices will eliminate some jobs. Tagging taco trucks will eliminate some jobs. Prohibiting the construction of the Ashby High Rise will eliminate some jobs. Each of these government actions, and many others, will not eliminate large numbers of jobs. But in aggregate, the number will be significant. In good times, some may be willing to sacrifice jobs-- so long as it isn't their job.

In 2009 Houston has an opportunity to become the leading city in the world. In 2009 Houston has an opportunity to demonstrate that freedom is not only moral, it is practical. The way to do that is to create jobs. And the way to create jobs is by increasing individual freedom.

Houston's Unique Selling Proposition

Lisa Gray recently wrote a column on Houston's brand and a recent talk by Patricia Martin at the Greater Houston Partnership. (HT: Houston Strategies)

The world thinks of us (and with reason) as a city built on oil, the headquarters of the world's petroleum industry. In this era of global warming and disappearing fossil fuels, Martin says, that's not the image you want. It's an "anxiety brand."

Anxiety brands play to consumers' uncertainty or fear. Hillary Clinton made herself into an anxiety brand, portraying herself as the seasoned, known candidate, less frightening than her (then) unknown competitor. The result was about what Martin would have predicted: effective at first but not long-term. People don't like anxiety brands.

Martin suggests that Houston could instead become a "compassion brand," known for its friendliness and big heart. When Hurricane Katrina showcased that side of our civic personality, people in other cities were surprised — just as they're surprised, once they get here, to discover Houston's openness to newcomers and its easy racial diversity. We could be known for our niceness — a city akin to Minneapolis, a brand like Kleenex or Dove soap.

Alternately, and more powerfully, we could be an "idea brand," a brand that seems magically new and transformative. The iPhone is an idea brand, says Martin, and so is Barack Obama.

But if Houston became an idea brand, what would its idea be?

One of the cardinal principles of marketing is the Unique Selling Proposition (USP). The USP is that characteristic or benefit offered by a company that differentiates it from competitors. Houston has a USP, and it isn't friendliness or compassion-- it is freedom.

I have previously written about the causal relationship between freedom and economic prosperity. Freedom, and particularly in regard to land use, is greater in Houston than most other American cities. The economic growth and prosperity Houston has enjoyed for decades is the consequence of that freedom. Houston's most unique characteristic is the relative freedom that citizens enjoy.

Of course, to advertise Houston in such a manner requires that City officials take freedom seriously. They must stop their assault on property rights. Houston will not retain its freedom if City officials continue to place restrictions on the actions of individuals and businesses. Houston will not remain America's freest city if City officials continue to restrict individual freedom.

The economic benefits of freedom are readily evident. Simply compare America's economy to that of nations with greater government control. Compare Houston's economy to that of cities with greater government control. The greater the freedom, the greater the economic prosperity. But economic arguments are insufficient.

While individuals are often motivated by their pocketbook, their ultimate motivation derives from morality. Politically, the City's increasing restrictions on private property are founded on the belief that the "public welfare" or the "common good" supersedes the rights of individuals. It is founded on the belief that the community is the standard of good, and individuals must sacrifice their values to those of the community. This is the premise that underlies the prohibition on "attention-getting devices", airport zoning, and the effort to stop the Ashby High Rise. It is the premise that underlies restrictions on billboards, the preservation ordinance, and every other land use regulation. Morally, these restrictions are founded on the belief that the individual must serve others, and those who refuse to do so "voluntarily" may properly be forced to do so.

Freedom is not a primary. It is founded on the premise that the individual has a moral right to pursue his values without intervention from others, so long as he respects their mutual rights. It is founded on the premise that the individual cannot be forced to sacrifice for others, nor can he force others to sacrifice for him. It is founded on the premise that each individual has a moral right to his own "life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness".

Houston has respected this right more than any major city in America. That is a fact that should be advertised. It is a fact that makes Houston unique. It is a fact that identifies the essence of Houston.

"America's Freest City" is more than a quaint tag line. It is a title that addresses the fundamental difference between Houston and other cities. It is Houston's Unique Selling Proposition.