A Temporary Obstacle

The new preservation ordinance contains a provision that "allows" property owners in a designated historic district to rescind that designation. The Chronicle's print article last week explained the process:

If 51 percent of property owners oppose the designation, the planning director must either recommend to City Council reducing the size of the district or eliminating it. Council is not bound to follow the recommendation.

I previously noted that the principle underlying the preservation ordinance cedes complete control of property use in historic districts to city council. This provision confirms that fact.

The ordinance goes further than ignoring the desires and judgment of individual property owners. According to the Chronicle, even if every property owner in a district wants to rescind the historic designation, council has no obligation to honor that desire. In short, council can do as it damn well pleases. Council can substitute its judgment for that of the property owners and impose that judgment by coercion.

This is the logical and inevitable result of the principle accepted by council when it passed the first preservation ordinance. At that time council declared that it had the authority to control some uses of some properties. But "some" was only a temporary limitation made necessary by pragmatic political considerations.

Even the current ordinance is a compromise, as acknowledged by Ma Parker. But such compromises are a complete victory for the preservationists. The principle animating preservationists--that the community has the right to regulate private property--is a matter of law. The details, which the preservationists are not entirely happy with, are only another temporary obstacle to their goals. But those obstacles are minor with preservation advocate Ma Parker running the show. After the ordinance was passed, she said:

It is possible under this ordinance to have historic districts have a reconsideration and break off and some parts of those historic districts go away. I'm going to do my best to make sure that doesn't happen.

Considering that she has a gun at her disposal, while those wishing to leave the historic district can do little more than beg for her cooperation, the prognosis isn't good for property owners in historic districts.

The Power of Principles

Last week city council "proved" that I have psychic powers. About 17 years ago I predicted the action that council took last week in regard to the preservation ordinance.

In the early 1990s city council was considering Houston's first preservation ordinance. I spoke before council in opposition to the ordinance. A council member asked me if I had a problem with the 90-day moratorium--which allowed the city to halt demolition of "historic" buildings for 90 days. I replied that I was because in principle there was nothing to stop that council or a future council from extending the moratorium to 120 days, or 200 days, or banning demolition completely. Last week city council banned demolition of "historic" buildings.

Granted, my prediction was not predicated upon psychic powers. It was founded on the power of principles. Having recognized the principle underlying the preservation ordinance, it was easy to predict the future. It was easy to predict how that principle would be applied in the future.

In principle, the preservation ordinance held (as do all land-use regulations) that the use of property is rightfully determined by the community, not the owner. The owner's desires and judgment are to be sacrificed to that of the community. Seventeen years ago the community judged it proper to have a 90 day moratorium. Today it judges it proper to prohibit the demolition of "historic" buildings. The difference is merely a matter of details.

Interestingly, the council member who questioned me about the moratorium scoffed at my answer. I can't predict what future councils might do, he said. He was right, for without principles it is impossible to predict the consequences of any action. Without principles, the future is a realm into which we must blindly venture armed with nothing but a hope and a prayer. Without principles a politician can claim ignorance of what future councils might do--a claim that is not without merit.

Or, he can can make make dire predictions about the failure to address some immediate need--such as Houston's crumbling infrastructure--without reference to other issues, past events, or implications for the future. As a case in point, consider Ma Parker's plea that Houstonians vote in favor of the "rain tax." In Sunday's Chronicle she told us that unless we vote for Proposition 1 we won't be able to pick up our kids from school, will be stranded at work, and will spend sleepless nights watching the bayous.

What she doesn't tell us is precisely how the money will be spent. She doesn't tell us that similar promises by past politicians have almost always fallen far short of the intended panacea (for example, the sports stadiums and the Bayport Cruise Terminal). What she doesn't tell us is that rebuilding Houston's infrastructure will turn into a huge political battle as politicians and voters insist that their pet project receive the highest priority. While she insists that the proposition imposes restrictions on how the new tax money can be spent, she doesn't tell us that politicians make a living finding ways to skirt the law and bring home the bacon to their political supporters. She doesn't tell us because she lacks the means to do so--rational principles.

Just as the eventual result of the original preservation ordinance were easy to predict if one holds rational principles, so the outcome of Proposition 1 (if passed) is easy to predict. It will take longer than promised, cost more than projected, and divide the city into warring factions. I only hope that this time I don't have the opportunity to see my prediction come true.

The Squeaky Wheel

The ongoing saga that is the new preservation ordinance is nearing its climax, and preservationists appear to be getting their way. The Chronicle reports:

The key change [in the new ordinance], which would permanently forbid demolition or certain alterations of historic buildings in 16 designated districts and three pending ones, was expected to remain intact, according to city officials and activists on both sides of the issue.

Conveniently ignored in this farce is the fact that city officials and activists are deciding the use of property that none of them own. (Granted, some of those on both sides of the issue do own property in the historic districts, but the ordinance applies to all property in those districts.)

Preservationists have been griping since the passage of the first ordinance in the 1990s. Because that ordinance did not prohibit the demolition of "historic" buildings, they have complained that the ordinance has no teeth. It wasn't enough that they had some voice in how owners of historic buildings used their property. They wanted, and have continued to demand, complete control over the property owned by others. Those demands have found a receptive audience in Ma Parker and she is eager to grease their wheels.

The drafting of the new ordinance has been an orgy of compromise. Even the Greater Houston Builders Association, which has historically shown some level of respect for property rights, has caved and is supporting the ordinance in principle. The association is just bickering over details while conceding the moral high ground to the preservationists.

No matter what is in the final ordinance, this isn't over. The preservationists will continue whining and they will be back for more.

Bill White's Legacy

While serving as Houston's mayor, Bill White was championed as a visionary who would lead our city to greatness. He advocated for light rail, rammed numerous "green" initiatives down our throats, and promoted Houston Hope. His business skills were touted as a new model for politicians.

In the wake of his exit from the local political scene, we are finding that White's leadership wasn't all that it appeared. He left the city with a massive budget deficit. He appointed leaders to Metro who apparently wasted millions of tax dollars, ignored federal law, and left Houstonians with a bunch of empty promises regarding light rail. And now we find that Houston Hope may leave tax payers holding the bag for millions more.

According to the Chronicle:

The city may have to return tens of millions of dollars to the Department of Housing and Urban Development for errors it made in the use of federal funds dating back to 2001....

City officials characterized HUD's challenges to its use of federal money as old news, but sources with knowledge of the matter say the city could be on the hook to pay back between $35 million and $45 million due to previous issues and newly identified problems. Those include questions about "Houston Hope" homes, a signature initiative of then-Mayor Bill White that sought to help low and middle-income individuals buy their own homes.

While in office, politicians love to tout programs like Houston Hope. It is an "easy" way to win political support with tax payer money. They love to make grand promises about how a program or initiative will provide untold benefits to everyone. By the time the program or initiative is exposed as a failure, the politician has moved on to greener pastures and his successors must clean up the mess. Such is the case with Bill White.

The more cynical among us would attribute this to politics as usual. And in a sense they would be right. 

While many complain about corrupt politicians and inane government policies, few question the basic premise underlying those policies. Few question the legitimacy of government's involvement in housing, education, transportation, or a myriad other aspects of our lives. Few question the legitimacy of using government coercion to regulate and control the actions of individuals. "Politics as usual" means a continual battle by competing groups to gain political influence and force their pet cause on the citizenry.

Bill White is certainly not unique in this respect. He capitalized on a booming economy, his political connections, and his likable personality to create support for expanding city government. He led a drunken orgy of regulations and programs that made voters feel good in the short term. Now, the hangover has set in and the bill must be paid.

A Victory for Preservationists

Last Friday city council released a final draft of proposed changes to the preservation ordinance. While preservationists are already criticizing the ordinance, at least one group that allegedly defends property rights has praised the proposal. Josh Sanders of Houstonians for Responsible Growth (HRG), a group that the Chronicle describes as representing "the interests of developers" said:

These changes to the ordinance will protect what's truly historic on the ground and not re-create history. The difference from the first draft is night and day.

While the proposed changes might make the ordinance more friendly to developers, it remains a threat to property rights. And HRG's response is the polar opposite of how property rights should be defended.

The right to property is the right to own, use, keep, and dispose of material values. The right to property means that an owner may use his property as he chooses, so long as he respects the mutual rights of others. Like all rights, property rights are a sanction to act without interference from others, including government.

However, HRG abandons this principle and concedes that government may interfere with property use, so long as it doesn't go "too far." According to HRG, city council may regulate and control "what's truly historic." And by what standard will it be determined what is "truly historic"? Your guess is as good as mine.

Regardless of the standard used, the property owner will not be the one making that determination:

As expected, the revised law will close a loophole that allowed property owners to demolish the structures on their land even when a city commission disapproved of their plans.

Which means, if city officials determine that a property is "truly historic," the plans, aspirations, and judgment of the property owner is irrelevant. He will be forced to abide by the dictates of regulators. He will not be able to use his property as he chooses.

City council's preservationist du jour, Sue Lovell, was quick to demonstrate that she too has no understanding of property rights:

This is a very fair, open, transparent process. We've met with at least 200 citizens and heard what they had to say and listened to it. We've found a great balance between respecting people's property rights and also protecting and preserving the history of the city of Houston.

Nearly 2 million people live within the city limits of Houston, and Lovell considers it fair that 200 of them had a voice in the ordinance.  She considers it fair that 1 in 10,000 Houstonians had input regarding how others may use their property. This, she wants us to believe, is respecting property rights.

While I doubt that Lovell is really that happy with the proposed ordinance, it represents a complete victory for her and the preservationists. The moral premise underlying the ordinance was not challenged, and indeed, HRG endorsed it. Until that premise is challenged, and the right to property is completely and consistently defended, HRG will continue to bicker over details. And that is a victory for preservationists.

Metro's Train Wreck

Late last week, Ma Parker and her Metro gang announced that the completion date for new rail lines will be delayed until 2014. It seems that the previous Metro administration tried to get around the federal law requiring that equipment be purchased from American companies, and the Federal Transit Administration is holding up the money needed to complete the lines.

Calling the challenges facing Metro "steep" and "rocky", Ma was quick to cast blame on former Metro CEO Frank Wilson. But any mismanagement on Wilson's part is not really Ma's concern:

We need to see whether there are any further investigations of Mr. Wilson, and I don't want to suppose whether there are or not. We are focused on Metro moving forward, and we'll worry about Mr. Wilson tomorrow.

Even though Metro has already spent $40 million on the contract it must now tear up, Ma doesn't care about the past. She is more concerned with jamming light rail down our throats and with hundreds of millions of tax dollars up for grabs, she isn't about to let anything get in her way. Investigating Wilson at this time might reveal deeper problems at Metro, and that could further undermine support for light rail.

The Chronicle agrees that the problem should simply be swept under the rug:

It's unfortunate that Wilson's insistence on driving the agency into a contract that violated federal rules will significantly delay construction schedules on the North, East and Southeast lines. What motivated this train wreck remains an open question, but solving that mystery shouldn't be the city's or Metro's top priority.  

Both the paper and Ma imply that there is no systemic problem at Metro. The problem lies with those managing that system. And since Metro now has new management, whatever caused this "train wreck" has surely been corrected.

This is quite convenient for supporters of light rail. Simply vilify the dearly departed, anoint the new management with an aura of sainthood, and everyone can merrily skip on down the tracks. There is no need to identify the cause of broken promises or wasted tax payer money. There is no need to learn from the past because doing so might threaten the future. To supporters of light rail, nothing--especially the facts--can be allowed to derail their plans.

Ma Parker's "Tool"

I previously wrote about the hissy fit that residents of The Heights are throwing over a proposed Wal-Mart. Ma Parker called a meeting on Wednesday so that the residents could voice their objections to the developer. All of that is typical and not really worthy of comment. However, Ma's comments, as reported by the Chronicle, were revealing.

"Our goal is to make sure that we get something from these developers that we would not otherwise get just as they go and do their own thing," she said. "It's leverage. It's a tool to bring them to the table."

The "tool" that Ma is speaking of is a state program called a 380 agreement. This program, according to the paper, "allows the city to grant or loan local tax revenue for economic development purposes." In this particular case, the city proposes to reimburse the developer for the cost of improving city property:

If the agreement is approved, developer Ainbinder Co. would widen and repave streets surrounding the project, refurbish bridges near the site, develop a bike and pedestrian trail along a stretch of Heights Boulevard south of I-10 and improve underground drainage, among other upgrades.

The money to pay the developer would come from increased property taxes from nearby properties. Which means, the developer will be "encouraged" to invest his money to improve city infrastructure, and if those improvements meet with the city's approval, money will be stolen from neighbors to reimburse the developer.

While Ma considers the 380 agreement her "tool", the implement that gives her "leverage" is a gun. It is her ability to use government coercion against both the developer and nearby property owners that brings anyone to the table. It is the government's coercive power that residents of The Heights have been hoping to use to halt the project. Instead, it appears that the city is trying to through crumbs--infrastructure improvements--to the residents as a consolation prize.

If the city government were limited to its proper function--the protection of individual rights, including property rights--this controversy would not exist. Residents of The Heights could not plead with city officials to halt the project. City officials could not use taxation to rob some for the alleged benefit of others. And instead of a civil war in which citizens battle to use government force for their own purposes, all of us could live our lives as we choose, according to our own judgment in the pursuit of our own values.

It is Not Enough to Comply

I previously wrote about the city's intimidation tactics regarding my burglar alarm permit. Several weeks before my permit was set to expire, I received an automated call from the city informing me of that fact and threatening me with a fine if I failed to renew the permit. I subsequently renewed the permit and thought little more about it--until last Friday night.

On Friday I received another automated phone call from the city, this time informing me that my permit had expired. Again, I was threatened with a fine. Had I failed to renew the permit, I might have appreciated this not so friendly reminder. But the fact is, my new permit is currently sitting on my desk. Further, my check cleared the bank more than three weeks ago. While some might dismiss this as further evidence of incompetence in city government, it goes far beyond that.

The issue begins with the city's demand that I obtain permission to operate an alarm. The city has imposed this requirement because other citizens have been guilty of sending false alarms. My actions are irrelevant to the city--I am regarded as irresponsible until I prove differently. Hence, the city treats me like a child with harassing phone calls. And just to make sure that I get the message, the city finds it necessary to threaten me with fines.


This is not an isolated incident. When a city inspector visited my office, he too found it necessary to threaten me with fines if I failed to get city permission to occupy the rental space.

In both instances my only "transgression" was a failure to obtain permission from the city to engage in certain activities. In neither case was there a claim that I had used force against another individual, engaged in fraud, or violated anyone's rights. That I operate an alarm or own a business makes me suspect, and my actual actions do not matter. It is not surprising then, that compliance with the city's demands is not enough--my actions still do not matter.

A proper government would use force only in retaliation, and only against those who initiate its use--such as robbers, kidnappers, rapists, and murderers. A proper government would treat individuals on the basis of their actions, not the actions of some group to which they belong. A proper government would serve its citizens by protecting their rights, not demand their obedience and submission.

The True Ethics Violation

KTRK reporter Wayne Dolcefino reports that city council member Jarvis Jackson may be under investigation for ethics violations. (HT: blogHouston) The councilman, who was arrested in June for evading arrest, has allegedly been "soliciting" contributions from contractors. As one example, allegedly Jackson asked a contractor--who had recently received a $10 million city contract--for a donation to his son's little league.

Dolcefino tells us that both Jackson and the contractor have avoided talking to him, implying that something shady might be going on. Namely, that Jackson is exchanging his political muscle for financial support. That may be the case here, but what about the fact that this occurs on a daily basis right out in the open? Apparently Dolcefino has no problem with the use of political pull, so long as it is done publicly. In fact, he admits as much:

At least with campaign donations, the public gets to see who's donating.

Even with charitable events, there's a paper trail the public can follow. 

Dolcefino implies that as long as we know who is making donations it's fine if they later benefit from greasing the political wheels. It's fine if contractors (or anyone) uses political influence in order to gain lucrative government contracts, just so long as we know who is benefiting. As long as everyone completes the proper forms there is nothing wrong with exchanging influence for money. It is wrong--and apparently unethical--only when it occurs out of the public eye.

Dolcefino is hardly alone in holding this position. Many people hold the view that all politicians are crooks, and then continue to support the ideas advocated by those crooks. In most jurisdictions, aiding and abetting thieves is itself a crime, and it is always unethical.

The fact is, our entire political system is an ethics violation. Our welfare state is based on the premise that it is proper to steal from some for the alleged benefit of others. If Dolcefino(or anyone) is concerned about ethics and government, he would do well to discover that the proper purpose of government is the protection of individual rights, not the redistribution of wealth. He would do well to discover that each individual has a moral right to live by the judgment of his own mind, in the pursuit of his own values, for the purpose of his own happiness. Now that would be a story.

A Double Standard

Sunday's print version of the Chronicle (the article was not available online when I wrote this, though a teaser was) provides more evidence of why the city is fighting a budget deficit:

Of approximately 1,200 cars assigned to city employees, only 54 percent of the total mileage reported was work-related. And the yearly tab for those cars and hundreds of others is considerable -- the maintenance and fuel costs for the take-home cars cost Houston taxpayers $4 million last year. 

Granted, $4 million isn't much in the grand scheme of the city's budget. But if the city can spend $4 million on take-home cars, it makes one wonder where else our money is being wasted.

While Ma Parker is vowing to crack down on the practice, city employees are justifying their free ride. Fire Department Assistant Chief Daniel Snell for example, told the paper:

The job I have requires me to be available 24 hours a day, seven days a week, on and off duty. I have a lot of off-duty activities, meeting and things after hours.

Snell, who has a 52 mile commute to his office, reported that only 11.9 percent of the miles he drives are work related. Which means, taxpayers are paying for his commute and probably a whole lot more. Further, city policy holds that employees must live within 30 miles of their office to be eligible for a take-home car. Snell is not the only employee in violation of this policy--the paper reports 44 employees with take-home cars live outside of the 30-mile limit.

The paper reports that the Public Works Department, which has 560 cars, has at least 10 employees whose business use mileage was reported at less than 15 percent. And three had negative percentages, which the city called a "reporting problem."  It is bad enough that the city won't enforce its own policies, but when we consider the nature of the positions held by many of those with take-home cars, the insult is even worse.

It is the Public Works Department that is responsible for such things as issuing occupancy permits. When my office was inspected a few months ago, 6 employees of the department arrived in separate vehicles. Their purpose in the visit was to enforce a city ordinance. In other words, while the city has no problems turning a blind eye to violations of its own policies, it won't hesitate to harass citizens. At least I now know where the money I paid for the inspection is going--to allow some city employee to drive to work for free.

More Absurdity from City Council

Swamplot reports (HT: blogHouston) that city council has approved new regulations for jitneys. The new regulations require all fixed-route services to have a capacity of 9 to 15 passengers.

I am sure that the wonderful folks on city council can provide us with an explanation as to why they picked this range. But I don't care to spend the time to find it, because frankly, I am just as sure that it is absurd and will ultimately come down to some type of claim that that number serves the "public interest."

If there is a legitimate economic reason for jitneys to have a capacity of 9 to 15 passengers, the operators of those services are perfectly capable of making that determination and acting accordingly. However, if there isn't, and the actual facts indicate that, they such a restriction is arbitrary.

Consider Rev Eco-Shuttle, which operates 2 5-passenger vehicles downtown. Under the regulation Rev will be allowed to continue operations, but will be prohibited from expanding. No matter what reason council has concocted for his passenger limit, it has contradicted itself in granting an exception. Either the passenger limit has a valid justification or it doesn't. When an exception is made to any law the message is quite clear: There is no valid justification for that law.

Council's interest in jitneys has been sparked by an increase in such services in areas such as downtown, Midtown, and Washington Avenue. Recognizing an opportunity, at least 2 companies have begun offering jitney services in these areas. These companies have acted on their own judgment in regard to offering the service and the size/ type of vehicle they use. And consumers have similarly acted on their own judgment--both services seem to be very popular.

Allowing individuals to make such voluntary choices does not sit well with those who want to control and dictate how we live our lives. And they will go to absurd lengths to impose their values upon others. The new regulations literally make it illegal for a business to operate with a 5-passenger vehicle. Which means, you would be a criminal if you used your vehicle as a jitney.

Anyone who chooses to operate a jitney has a moral right to do so. City council has no business dictating who may or may not operate a jitney or the type of vehicle they must use.

The jitney ordinance continues a trend going back decades. Council has increasingly used government coercion to dictate what you may or may not do. From landscaping to signs, from taco trucks to land-use, council has enacted ordinance after ordinance that prohibits a growing number of voluntary and consensual activities of Houstonians. Virtually nothing is off limits to the power lusting "leaders" of our city, and as long as Houstonians accept these restriction, controls, and mandates, city government will continue to assume more control over our lives.

Metro's Got a Gun

The Mighty Wizard posts an informative summary of 2 recent events involving Metro board members. (HT: blogHouston) A couple of his comments are worth elaboration.

The issue of parking also came up with the Airport Express buses. Sedlak [John Sedlak, Metro VP] told the audience that Metro "loses a ton of money" running the Airport Express, but was looking at expanding the service to stop by nearby downtown hotels in an effort to pick up ridership. [removed a parenthetical comment]

Only a government agency could think that the way to correct a money-losing service is by expanding it. So long as Metro can continue to force citizens to subsidize its operations the agency has no incentive to do anything that makes financial sense. It can simply grab a gun, go back to the public trough, and demand that taxpayers fork over another billion dollars or so. And that is what it is doing.

Garcia [Metro chairman Gilbert Garcia,] stated that agency leadership was eating, sleeping, going all out to get the $900 million in federal grant money. 

Apparently Metro isn't content to steal only from the citizens of Houston. It wants to pony up to the federal trough as well, and force the citizens of other cities to pay for our light rail.

For years we have been told that Houston needs light rail or myriad ills will befall our city. Just like Houstonians have been told--on 3 separate occasions--that without zoning the city would lose jobs to more "progressive" locales. The statists were wrong about zoning, and they are wrong about light rail.

Our so-called city leaders insist that we must be more like the other major cities in the nation, while ignoring the fact that those cities are losing jobs and citizens. Our "leaders" want us to follow the same failed policies that is crippling other major American cities. If we continue to follow their advice, we will soon be just like those other cities, and that won't be a good thing.

A Tale of Two Walmarts

Two Houston neighborhoods are unhappy with Walmart because of the retailer's plans to build stores nearby. One is in The Heights, and it has some residents fearing that small businesses won't be able to compete. As one told the Houston Press:

My fear is that if Walmart moved into this area, it would pose major competition to all of these places I love so much and force them into extinction.

Undoubtedly, Walmart will pose a competitive threat to many of the small stores in The Heights. But the voluntary choices of the store owners and consumers will determine which survive. If the stores offer products not found in Walmart, and consumers want to buy those products, they should have no problem.

Of course, there are those who don't want individuals to have such choices. The Chronicle reports that residents of The Heights met with city council last week with the intent of stopping the project through political force (my words, not the Chronicle's). Apparently, Heightsonians have less political clout than the home owners who oppose the Ashby High Rise--the city is considering tax breaks for the developer of the Walmart project.

A few miles to the west residents of Ashton Village are also upset about a proposed Walmart near their neighborhood. But they aren't trying to stop the retailer. According to KPRC:

"In contrast with trying to fight the Walmart, we really want to work with them to see what would be the best plan," Gilbert [a home owner] said.

Residents said they found out too late to stop Walmart from breaking ground on the site. Some are worried about property values, but admitted that their hands are tied.

"We really want to work with them to see what would benefit us all from them," resident Jesse Green said. 

I can certainly understand that the residents don't want excessive traffic flowing through their neighborhood. This is a legitimate concern, and from what I have read, Ashton Villagers are taking a proper approach. Rather than seeking political power to halt the project, they are voicing their concerns to Walmart with the intent of preventing a nuisance from developing.

Walmart has a right to use its property as it chooses. But it may not do so in a way that interferes with the prior use of other property owners. In this context, Walmart cannot use its property in such a way that it will interfere with the prior use of home owners in Ashton Village. For example, Walmart may not create so much traffic in the neighborhood that the residents cannot safely walk down the street.

I am not an expert on traffic flow and related issues, and I won't begin to claim that I know what specific criteria should be used to make such assessments. What is clear is that objective criteria--not arbitrary claims--must be used. It appears that the residents of Ashton Village are not resorting to the emotion driven pleas of those in The Heights, and for that they should be applauded.

Killing Two Birds with One Bio-Degradable Bag

For several months I have been complaining about the city's mandate that citizens use bio-degradable bags for lawn debris. The bags are too small, don't work with my lawn caddy, and are simply a pain to use. This past weekend I came up with a solution, that if I may say so myself, is absolutely brilliant. And the best part is, it allowed me to address another lingering problem that I have been wrestling with.

Over the past few years I have managed to accumulate a rather impressive collection of used motor oil and house paint. It's not that I am a pack rat or anything, but I simply have not had time to take this toxic waste to the city's recycling center a half-mile away. Besides, the cans have been rusting for some time and I figured that eventually the contents would leak out and seep into the ground. Then I could just throw the cans away.

However, by my calculations this process might take another ten years. And for some reason I seem to continue to accumulate oil and paint faster than it is seeping out. My wife hasn't been happy about this, as she wants to put a flower bed where I have been storing these hazardous chemicals. And, being the worry wart that she is, she was also concerned about what was happening to the soil. But I digress.

This past weekend I realized that the problem I was having with the bags was caused by the conical shape at the bottom, combined with the "fluffiness" of the debris I was putting in the bags. There wasn't enough weight in the debris to stabilize the bottom of the bag, and when I tried to cram more into the bag, it would slide off of the caddy and stimulate a streak of swearing that would embarrass a sailor.

When I realized this, I first thought of wetting the leaves and debris. But the water just ran off of the leaves and made the bag too heavy. Then it hit me--use the paint and oil. Neither would run off. This stroke of genius now allows me to get more into each lawn bag, while also disposing of the oil and paint.

If you find yourself needing to dispose of toxic waste, this is a perfect way to do so. I would suggest about 1 gallon of paint or oil per bag. Also, take care to not poke any holes in the bag, or the liquid could seep out and leave a trail all over the place.

I am sure that some will claim that this is illegal, but I couldn't find anything in the city ordinances explicitly saying that we can't put used motor oil or house paint in the disposable lawn bags. Besides, my last trick was to put the bags in my neighbor's yard.

Private Parks in Houston, Kinda, Sorta, Not Really

In 1976 some concerned Houstonians formed a group call the Houston Parks Board (HPB). According to the group's web site:

They wanted to contribute to the city's parks system through a private organization that would respect their needs and desires. 

Since that time the group has helped acquire 15,000 acres for parks and raised more than $70 million. While this provides considerable evidence that private individuals will support parks, we shouldn't get too giddy over the HPB. Their efforts at raising private money and using voluntary means to expand the city's parks is only part of their story.

Like many such organizations, they are also political players:

In every project the Houston Parks Board works in partnership with community groups, interest groups, non-profit organizations, City of Houston, Harris County, and other entities.

In other words, HPB isn't satisfied to allow individuals to support parks when they choose. HPB also wants to "nudge" them with government coercion. And now HPB wants to do this on a massive scale.

According to the Chronicle's latest rah-rah editorial, the group wants to add 250 linear miles of park space along the cities bayous. HPB's web site gives us a clue as to what is in store:

The Greater Houston Partnership will take the Bayou Greenway Initiative to our elected representatives in the coming months to secure support, and hopefully obtain funding commitments over the next two to three budget cycles.  As that process moves forward, HPB will continue to work with the community, increase its partnerships with other bayou organizations, continue on-going communication with its public partners, and pursue private funding opportunities.

If the Greater Houston Partnership can twist a few arms with promises of campaign donations and other political support, you had better hide your wallet. Because you are going to get to pay for this one way or another, whether you like the idea or not.

The Chronicle is already drooling over the idea, listing 7 reasons why it loves the idea. As is typical, this proposal is going to cure every alleged ill plaguing the city: flooding, air quality, the economy, etc. I am surprised that they didn't claim that the proposal will also rid the city of aphids, reduce the price of gasoline, and clean up the oil in the gulf.

There seems to be no shortage of groups with grand ideas to improve the city. From the preservationists to Renew Houston to HPB, they all claim that life would be so much better if government had more controls on the lives of individuals and seized more of their wealth. Of course, they don't use such language because that would require some degree of intellectual honesty. Instead, they will tell you that it is for your own good, i.e., the "public welfare." After all, they, like David Crossley, are way smarter than you. If you don't believe, just ask them.

A Plan to Stimulate the Economy

Most people seem to agree that government coercion should be used to promote the "general welfare." Since this term is undefined and undefinable, I have decided to quit trying to convince Houstonians otherwise and use it to my advantage.

If a noisy gang can petition city hall to stop the Ashby High Rise, or prohibit the demolition of "historic" buildings, or outlaw "attention-getting devices," or prohibit parking in one's own yard, then why can't I assemble my own noisy gang to do likewise? Well I can, and I have a cause that will promote the "general welfare."

It has come to my attention that new home construction has slowed considerably. As a result, thousands of construction workers are unemployed. And paint stores, among others, are also suffering. So I propose that city hall mandate that all Houstonians must paint their home at least once every two years. This will employ thousands of workers and be a gold mine for the paint stores. Of course, my company will also benefit, but I do not have my own welfare in mind when I make this proposal. I am thinking of the "greater good," just like the engineers behind Renew Houston.

I think it would be rather easy to assemble thousands of unemployed construction workers to march on city hall. After all, they aren't doing anything else. I suspect that council members would be moved by their stories of hardship, not to mention the sea of butt cracks.

I also think that city hall should do more than simply force home owners to paint. I think that the city should establish a Color Commission to determine which paint colors will be acceptable in each neighborhood. If it is appropriate to tell property owners how they may use their property, then it surely must be appropriate to tell them what color is acceptable.

I personally get tired of driving through neighborhoods where the houses have almost identical colors. Many Houstonians are simply not very daring when it comes to picking paint colors, and I think that it is high time for city council to force them out of their staid conservatism. I think it would be really cool if at least one house on every street was painted Sassy Green.

I will admit that my long-term goal is to have this mandate extended to interior painting as well. That would create even more jobs. But like the preservationists and the anti-billboard crowd, I will be satisfied to get my foot in the door. In about 15 years I will go back to city council, argue that the ordinance simply isn't strong enough, and demand a tougher ordinance.

I should add that the ordinance must prohibit home owners from doing their own painting. That simply wouldn't be right, as it would do nothing to employ construction workers. I am sure that many will whine about their "rights" and claim that they should be able to do what they want with their property. But there is a bigger issue at stake here--the "general welfare"--and they should be willing to sacrifice for the "greater good." If they aren't eager to do their "fair share," they can think about their transgressions while they rot in jail.

If my proposal strikes you as silly, then consider the "principles" that underlie it. Do you regard it as proper for a small gang to demand laws that control and restrict the actions of others? Do you believe that the individual should be forced to sacrifice for the "common good"? Do you believe that government force should be used to stop the voluntary actions of consenting adults? Those are the "principles" that underlie my proposal. Those are the "principles" that most Houstonians accept.

Punishing the Innocent

On Tuesday evening I received an automated phone call from the city of Houston informing me that my burglar alarm permit would expire in 2 weeks. While some may appreciate a friendly reminder of such easily overlooked things, I am not one of them. Further, the phone call was more than merely a friendly reminder--it was also a threat. The city found it necessary to inform me that failure to renew my permit would result in a $500 fine.

According to the Burglar Alarm Ordinance, the purpose of permitting is two-fold:

1. To reduce false alarms.
2. To insure that burglar alarms are properly installed, maintained, and operated.

While this might seem plausible, the fact is that the ordinance does neither.

In 12 years I have never had a false alarm. I didn't have one before I was required to obtain a permit nor after. Further, the city has never inspected my alarm to insure that it was properly installed, is being maintained, or that I operate it properly. In fact, the only thing that has changed since the permitting process was adopted is that I must fill out a form and send a check to the city once a year.

The city claims that 95% of the alarms it receives are false and significant resources are tied up responding to these false alarms. I have no reason to doubt the statistics the city cites, but they are irrelevant.

If the city wishes to reduce false alarms, then it should be targeting those who send them. If the city wants to recover the expenses associated with responding to false alarms, then it should go after those who send false alarms. Instead, the city seeks to punish the innocent along with the guilty. More specifically, the city treats all of us as if we are guilty.

Consider the fact that my permit is still valid, yet the city found it necessary to harass me with a phone call. I have not violated any ordinance and the city has no reason to think that I will. But that did not stop the city from calling me and threatening to fine me for an action I have not taken.

Consider the fact that one of the proper purposes of government is the protection of individual rights and on the local level the police are the primary means of doing this. However, if I do not have a valid permit the police may refuse to respond to an alarm from my home. Which means, I could be beaten, robbed, or murdered, and the police would not respond because I do not have their permission to have an alarm in my home. This is morally reprehensible.

Statistically, the odds are overwhelming that an alarm reported to the police department is false. But what is true in general is not necessarily true of a particular. If 95 out of 100 alarms are false, the police do not know which 5 are not until they respond. It is horrible enough that the city forces us to seek permission to operate an alarm; it is infinitely more so when it refuses to protect our property and lives because we didn't obtain that permission.

If false alarms are truly a problem--and that appears to be the case--then punish the guilty. Fine those who needlessly consume valuable police resources. But do not make the rest of us criminals simply because we want to have an electronic device in our home.

You Can Fight City Hall

In response to Tuesday's post about libraries my wife emailed me the following comment:

I could relate to Mr. Moderate's comment and story about his father growing up poor and how important the public library was.  It was very important in our family too. Reading books was very much valued to dad and us kids, but we counted on the library for our books and any research. We didn't have money to buy books and of course, no Internet connection. However, Mr. Moderate is thinking all or none...public library or no library. I used to think that too. We're so indoctrinated growing up, it's very hard to even imagine that any big resource like schools or libraries could be owned privately.

There are two aspects of my wife's comment worth investigating further.

The first, and more fundamental, issue is the distinction between the metaphysical and the man-made. Metaphysical facts are those governed by the laws of nature, such as the orbit of planets. Such facts are necessitated by the nature of the entities involved. Man-made facts, such as public institutions like education and libraries, are not necessary--they result from the choices made by individuals. Metaphysical facts cannot be different or altered; man-made facts can be.

Confusing these two types of facts can have disastrous consequences. To regard the man-made as a metaphysical fact is to declare that it cannot be altered, that it is beyond the choice of anyone. It is to declare that "you can't fight city hall" and that taxes are as inevitable as death. But you can fight city hall. The choices made by legislators, bureaucrats, and voters are no more inevitable and unalterable than your choice of attire.

The ultimate result of regarding the man-made as a metaphysical fact is the passive acceptance of the decrees and edicts of politicians and bureaucrats ("you can't fight city hall"). The result is to regard institutions like public education, public libraries, and taxation as beyond question, and a society in which education, libraries, roads, etc. are provided entirely by the private sector as unimaginable.

Examples abound of private businesses providing libraries, education, parks, and virtually every other illegitimate service currently provided by government. Even those who argue that government must provide these services often acknowledge the existence of private providers. Why then, the stubborn refusal to consider the possibility of completely eliminating these improper public institutions?

In a word, the answer is: Altruism.

If you raise the issue of abolishing some public institution, such as education, it does not take long for someone to retort: What about the poor? Without government involvement, it is argued, the poor would not have access to education, libraries, parks, etc.

Again, history provides an abundance of examples to refute this claim. For example, prior to the Civil War public education was virtually non-existent. Yet, there was no shortage of educational opportunities for immigrants, the poor, and minorities. Educator Robert A. Peterson wrote:

In 1767, there were at least sixteen evening schools, catering mostly to the needs of Philadelphia’s hard-working German population. For the most part, the curriculum of these schools was confined to the teaching of English and vocations. There were also schools for women, blacks, and the poor. Anthony Benezet, a leader in colonial educational thought, pioneered in the education for women and Negroes. The provision of education for the poor was a favorite Quaker philanthropy. As one historian has pointed out, “the poor, both Quaker and non-Quaker, were allowed to attend without paying fees.”

While these examples provide practical refutation of claims that the poor must do without if government isn't involved, the primary refutation is moral.

The needs of one man, no matter how dire, are not a claim on the property or money of another. That some may desire an education that they cannot afford does not give them a right to seize the property of others to attain that education. This does not change merely because government acts as the thief.

Each individual has a moral right to take the actions necessary to sustain and enjoy his life. To deny him the fruits of his labor is to deny him the right to live; it is a declaration that the individual does not exist for his own sake, but for the needs and desires of others.

Granted, few make such declarations openly and explicitly. But this is the meaning that underlies claims that you must place the "common good" or "general welfare" above your own personal desires. Further, consider what occurs if you do not "voluntarily" comply--you are force to do so. Your own desires, interests, values, and judgment is irrelevant--you will be compelled to live as others demand.

The logical application of altruism represents the other error that results when the distinction between the metaphysical and the man-made is confused: The metaphysical is regarded as malleable.

The use of coercion negates an individual's judgment. It is an attempt to "persuade" with a club rather than logic. It pretends that a man can be compelled to accept an idea as true, regardless of his own knowledge and conclusions. It ignores the fact that the mind is an attribute of the individual, and nobody can think or reason for another. It is a denial of the fact that man's metaphysical nature is that of a rational, volitional being.

The sad irony is, those who claim that it is impractical to fight city hall simultaneously believe that it is practical to compel the mind of an individual. They are wrong on both counts. As Ayn Rand wrote: "To deal with men by force is as impractical as to deal with nature by persuasion."

When the Investigator Calls

In March I moved my office to another suite in the same building. Due to all of the issues involved in moving, as well as my genetic disinclination to seek permission to act according to my own judgment, I did not obtain an occupancy permit from the city for my new location.

About a month ago a thug "investigator" (that is the title on his card) from the city paid me a visit to inquire about said permit. He promptly informed me that failure to obtain an occupancy permit could result in a fine of $2,000. I thanked him for the threat, which he later repeated when he handed me a citation. I also thanked him for his role in stimulating the economy, but I think the sarcasm simply bounced off his sanctimonious back.

In a remarkable display of technological prowess, the city does not allow us to apply for these permits online. We must drive downtown, where we are allowed to sit in an office while city worker's gab about the television program they watched previous night. When I was finally called to submit my application, the rotund clerk chastised me for signing the document with a red pen. Even though she had 2 pens sitting between us, she refused to allow me to use one to fill out another application. Fortunately, another slave citizen allowed me to use his. Upon the completion of the "interview" and my surrender of $210, I was allowed to return to reality.

As I awaited my inspection, I was in quite a quandary. According to the citation issued by the city's goon "investigator", I cannot occupy my suite until I have obtained an occupancy permit. According to the information given to me by Shamu the Whale Clerk, my business must be operational at the time of the inspection required to obtain an occupancy permit. I did not to bother contacting the city for clarification regarding these contradictory directives, primarily because I suspected that any explanation offered would simply make my head explode.

Fortunately I have some experience with these occupancy permit inspections, so I had a pretty good idea of the petty crap that we needed to do. For instance, we now have a sign above our front door telling us that it is the exit. (This has been particularly helpful, as we had been crawling through the air ducts to leave the building.) We also have a sign on the door telling us that it must remain open during business hours.

I know I sound like a whiner. I really should be grateful that the city is forcing me to succumb to its every whim, because this is really for my benefit. At least that is what the "investigator" told me. And he is probably right, given the fact that I have trouble finding a door unless it is clearly marked "exit". Maybe the city will do me a real favor and make me mark that hole outside so that I can distinguish it from a certain part of my  anatomy.

I thought about posting this prior to my inspection, but wondered if it might have some impact on the inspection. Not that any of the city's code enforcement people read my blog (or can even read for that matter), but Shamu and her colleagues seem to be able to understand some written words and I feared that they might misinterpret this post as being less than obsequious.

The Lawn Bag Mandate: Immoral and Impractical

On Wednesday I complained about the city's mandate that citizens use biodegradable leaf bags. Two readers responded with suggestions on how I could deal with the situation. One suggested that I buy a mulcher (perhaps sharing the cost with neighbors) and use the mulch in my beds. Another suggested that I hire a private company to haul away my yard debris. Both of these are certainly alternatives, but they miss my primary point.

(I hasten to add that posts such as this are not intended to discourage comments. I often do not have sufficient time to respond to comments as fully as I would like, and rather than leave a comment sitting in limbo, I approve it and write a brief response. Posts such as this provide me with the opportunity to respond more fully.)

Neither reader questions the city's "right" to impose such a mandate upon the citizenry. Both imply that this is proper and we must toe the line. Both suggest alternatives that would allow me to avoid the mandate.

While it is true that I have choices, those choices have been limited by government fiat. As one example, I cannot choose from among the wide assortment of lawn bags available--I am limited to one type of bag.  Both readers argue that I have other choices--such as mulching or using a private company--so what is my complaint? Such suggestions ignore the nature of those choices, as well as the full context.

Through my tax dollars I am already paying the city for solid waste service, and I have no choice in that matter. To use a private company (or buy a mulcher) means that I must spend additional money for a service that I am already forced to pay for.

To illustrate this point, consider another service provided by government and supported by tax dollars--education. A parent who is unhappy with public schools certainly has the option of home schooling or sending their children to a private school. But the cost can be significant, and many, if not most, middle class families cannot afford that expense because they are already forced to spend their education dollars on the sewer that is public education. In reality, most parents really don't have a choice in the matter. To claim otherwise is to drop the context.

Admittedly, the cost of a mulcher or a private trash service is considerably less than a private school. But the principle is the same--I am forced to pay for a government service regardless of my own judgment, needs, or desires. And if I don't like the service that I receive, I must pay for it again.

Few of us would tolerate this from a private company. We would complain to the company and demand that we get the service that we paid for. We would take our business elsewhere if the company refused to provide satisfaction. But we wouldn't be forced to pay 2 companies for the same service. Yet, when government is one of the service providers, this is precisely what occurs.

When government expands beyond its legitimate function--the protection of individual rights--it necessarily limits our choices. Government intervention necessarily limits and restricts our ability to act morally--according to our own rational judgment. My readers suggest that there are practical alternatives. But there is no dichotomy between the moral and the practical. When my choices are limited, whatever choices remain cannot be deemed practical for they necessarily limit what I can achieve in practice.

For example, if I pursue the mulching suggestion I must spend at least $200 to get one that would be sufficient for my needs. If I immediately place the mulch in my beds I will then have to deal with a nitrogen deficiency in those beds--decaying organic material depletes nitrogen. I would then need to add nitrogen to my soil, which would require additional expense and time. Further, I would need to regularly test the soil to be certain that I am adding the proper amount of nitrogen. Too much nitrogen can promote certain fungal diseases and too little can stunt plant growth. The time, effort, and expense involved in this process must necessarily come from somewhere.

This allegedly "practical" solution would require that I give up other values. If I must spend money on a mulcher, soil testing, and nitrogen supplements, I will necessarily have less money for other values. If I must spend time mulching, spreading the mulch, testing soil, and adding nitrogen, I will necessarily have less time for other values.

I have a moral right to live my life as I choose, so long as I respect the mutual rights of others. Government's purpose is the protection of this right. Yet, the city's bag mandate prohibits me from acting as I judge best. It forces me to spend money and time contrary to my own judgment, whether I use the city's bags or pursue some alternative.

Certainly, this is not the most threatening issue facing the nation or the city. But if we accept such minor violations of our rights then we pave the way for much more egregious violations. It isn't a matter of degree, it is a matter of principle.