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 Voluntary and the Coercive

On Thursday the Chronicle reported that a vote on the new preservation ordinance has been delayed for a week. That was an expected development, as the various parties are trying to reach a compromise. What is more noteworthy is a comment left by a reader:

I don't understand why it's okay for suburban neighborhoods (and some inside the Loop) to have deed restrictions, but the older neighborhoods can't have essentially the same thing, which is what these preservation ordinances basically are. 

This argument was used by zoning advocates in the 1990s. It ignores a crucial distinction between deed restrictions and zoning/ preservation ordinances. The former are voluntary and consensual, while the latter are mandatory and coercive.

Those who equate deed restrictions and government land-use regulations see a similarity--restrictions on the use of property--and conclude that they are essentially the same. In the process, they ignore the nature and source of those restrictions.

Deed restrictions are a contractual agreement between property owners in a given area. An individual is free to accept the restrictions imposed by that contract, or simply not purchase the restricted property. The choice is his and he can act according to his own judgment. Land-use regulations however, are imposed by government force. The desires and judgment of a property owner are irrelevant--he must abide by the dictates of government.

As evidence, consider the preservation ordinance. Preservationists want to permanently prohibit the demolition of certain buildings, regardless of the property owner's judgment.

Those who see no difference between voluntary choice and coercive mandates are guilty of the worst kind of package-deal. To them, a restriction is a restriction, when it is accepted voluntarily or imposed coercively. To them, it does not matter if an individual agrees to the restriction or is forced to act against his own judgment. Sadly, if they ever do discover the difference it may be too late.

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.

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.

The Pot Calling the Kettle Black

Ramona Davis, executive director of the Greater Houston Preservation Alliance, tells us that opponents of the proposed preservation ordinance are using a "a barrage of misinformation, disinformation and scare tactics" in Sunday's Chronicle:

It is not clear whether the leaders of this campaign are woefully misinformed or willfully misleading the public, but it is obvious that they either have not read Houston's preservation ordinance and the proposed amendments or that they are intentionally distorting the issue. The Greater Houston Preservation Alliance is determined to clear up these misrepresentations.

What is particularly interesting about the article is that Davis resorts to the same tactics she accuses others of using. Consider, for example, that Davis does not document the source of her information. She cites information from a web site, but provides neither the name of the organization operating the web site nor a URL. Apparently we are to take her word on this as a matter of faith. But this is minor compared to a later claim.

Resorting to a tactic used by pro-zoners in the 1990s, Davis writes:

Draconian measures are already in place in many of Houston's older neighborhoods, but they have nothing to do with the preservation ordinance. They are the restrictions enforced in the townhouse and condominium developments being built in and around our historic districts. Approved paint schemes, acceptable types and placement of plants, and bans on additions, alterations and even basketball goals are justified as necessary for protecting a homeowner's investment. Yet opponents of the ordinance revisions warn that instituting much less stringent protections for historic properties in the same neighborhood would have disastrous results.

Davis is unable to distinguish between the voluntary, contractual agreements that are deed restrictions and the mandatory, coercive mandates that make up the preservation ordinance. She sees a similarity--restrictions on the use of property--and ignores the fact that deed restrictions and the preservation ordinance are fundamentally different.

To call this misinformation would be too kind. To equate a private, voluntary agreement with a coercive government mandate is not an innocent mistake. It requires a willful evasion. And the evasions do not stop there. Throughout her article Davis addresses concrete details of the ordinance, repeatedly telling us what the proposed ordinance does not do--for now.

When the first preservation ordinance was being considered in the 1990s I told city council that it would only be a matter of time before preservationists demanded more stringent controls on "historic" properties. And that is precisely what is happening.

Once it becomes acceptable for government to establish some controls and restrictions on the use of property, it becomes acceptable--as a matter of principle--for government to completely control the use of property. The only issue up for debate is the extent of those controls. In time, those who want more and more controls will push the envelope, as preservationists are doing today.And that is precisely what is happening today.

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.

What About the Future?

Preservationists insist that we protect "our past" by prohibiting the demolition of old buildings. In the current "debate" over the city's proposal to toughen the existing preservation ordinance, the Chronicle previously reported:

The city plans to begin negotiating with developers, property owners and preservationists in the coming months about permanent changes to the law...

Many would think that it is reasonable to gather together those who will be impacted by the ordinance to work out an agreement. But the truth is, this is impossible. The city cannot even begin to identify everyone who will be impacted by the ordinance.

For example, if someone moves to Houston after the ordinance is enacted and seeks to buy a home in a "protected" neighborhood, he will find that housing prices have risen dramatically. (Sue Lovell, who is leading the preservation effort, has noted that home prices in "protected" neighborhoods have risen 30%.) He will pay significantly more for housing or have to seek housing somewhere else. Yet he is not going to be invited to the city's pow wow.

Further, as the number of "protected" neighborhoods expands, pressure on housing in other areas will also increase, driving up prices there. How far and to what extent this ripple will continue is impossible to predict, but the result will be higher housing prices throughout the city. This will impact everyone who currently lives in Houston and surrounding areas, as well as anyone who moves to the city in the future. They will be among the hidden victims of the city's attempt to preserve the past.

As with all government interventions, the focus is on the here and now. The long-term consequences are of no concern. They will worry about the future when it gets here. And that usually means more interventions.

A Surprising Editorial-- Not

Not surprisingly, the Chronicle has endorsed expanding the historic preservation ordinance:

People who want to live in historic neighborhoods ought to have that choice. And if we don’t protect those neighborhoods, they’ll slowly slip away.

In true collectivist fashion, the paper argues that what an individual property owner wants is irrelevant--he must surrender his judgment and desires to that of his neighbors. If enough noisy and nosy property owners in a neighborhood want to force others to beg the city for permission to use their property, then so be it.

In response to critics of the proposal the paper offers the following:

Detractors argue that any limitation on what can be done with a piece of land is bad for property values. But that’s a hard case to make: In cities across the country, historic neighborhoods tend to be the most desirable.

The paper doesn't tell us which cities, so I can only assume that it means the same ones that have made housing unaffordable for the middle class because of land-use regulations. I can only assume that it means the same cities that are losing citizens and jobs. The connection between preservation and higher housing costs isn't lost on the Chronicle:

And tight protections certainly haven’t hurt the Old Sixth Ward. If anything, they seem to make buyers feel secure. In the three years the protections have been in place there, sale prices have zoomed up by roughly 30 percent.

These arbitrarily inflated housing costs are what the paper and preservationists want to impose on neighborhoods around the city. And the impact won't be limited to the neighborhoods receiving "protection". Higher housing costs in those neighborhoods will increase demand in non-historic neighborhoods, thereby driving up housing costs there.

But these simple economic arguments are not the primary case against historic preservation. The primary case is moral--each individual has a moral right to use his property as he judges best, so long as he respects the mutual rights of others. Government's purpose is to protect this right by prohibiting the initiation of force.

Renovating or demolishing an old building does not violate the rights of anyone. Forcing property owners to seek government approval to do so does--it is founded on the premise that property owners may act only with permission, rather than by right. Ownership means control; land-use regulations--including historic preservation--wrests control from the rightful owner and places it in the hands of politicians, bureaucrats, and nosy neighbors.

Preservationists hold that buildings have intrinsic value. They hold that buildings should be protected and preserved regardless of the consequences to human beings. In their zeal to protect bricks and mortar they do not hesitate to trample on the lives of property owners.

Preserve Houston's Culture, Not It's Buildings

With stricter controls on "historic" properties looming on the horizon, the Greater Houston Preservation Alliance (GHPA) will likely play a key role in the effort to strong-arm property owners. Interestingly, the GHPA's web site claims that:

GHPA promotes the preservation and appreciation of Houston's architectural and cultural historic resources through education, advocacy and committed action, thereby creating economic value, developing a stronger sense of community.

If this is true, then why is the organization's emphasis on bricks and mortar rather than ideas? If the GHPA really wants to preserve and appreciate Houston's culture, then why is it so adamant in attacking that culture? These are, of course, rhetorical questions, because GHPA has no understanding of Houston's culture, let alone a desire to preserve it.

As Ayn Rand wrote:

A nation’s culture is the sum of the intellectual achievements of individual men, which their fellow-citizens have accepted in whole or in part, and which have influenced the nation’s way of life. 

The same is true of a city--its culture is the sum of individual intellectual achievements that influence or dominate the city's way of life. What then, is Houston's culture?

In essentials, Houston's culture is defined by a relative respect for individual rights, including property rights. (I say relative because the city certainly engages in numerous violations of property rights. But in comparison to other large cities, Houston is a bastion of freedom in this regard.) The city's lack of zoning and similar restrictions makes Houston unique, politically, economically, and morally.

This is precisely what the GHPA and other preservationists do not want to preserve. They do not recognize the moral right of each individual to use his property as he chooses (so long as he respects the mutual rights of others). They seek to remove this freedom in the name of protecting old buildings.

I certainly appreciate history and historical sites. But my appreciation and interest has little to do with the physical aspects of a building. My appreciation and interest pertains to the intellectual achievements represented by those buildings. For example, the significance of Independence Hall is what was achieved there. Even when the architecture is the focus--such as Fallingwater--that architecture represents an intellectual achievement.

Such achievements are not what GHPA seeks to protect, for such achievements are the result of an unfettered mind. They are the result of intellectual freedom--the recognition of an individual's right to act according to his own judgment. The ideas advocated by the Founding Fathers and Frank Lloyd Wright did not enjoy universal support. They were not required to seek the approval of others prior to acting; they acted according to their own judgment.

More than other cities, Houston has continued to recognize this fundamental moral right. Individuals have been left relatively free to use their property as they choose. The result has been lower housing costs, a lower cost of doing business, and economic prosperity. This is Houston's culture, and this is what the preservationists are attacking.

Doublespeak at City Hall

Having recently read George Orwell's 1984, the idea of "doublespeak" is fresh in my mind. In the world of 1984, government officials distort the meanings of words, uttering such nonsense as "war is peace". But doublespeak is not confined to works of fiction--it is alive and well in Houston's city council. Consider the words of council member Sue Lovell, who is leading the effort to tighten controls on "historic" properties:

I'm all for property rights, too. I'm a property owner, and I'm here to defend that right. I also want to be able to ... defend the history of our city, and so, we're all going to sit down and listen to each other.

The right to property is the right of use and disposal. The right to property is a sanction to use one's property as one chooses, so long as one respects the mutual rights of others. But this is not what Lovell proposes. She seeks to force the owners of "historic" properties to beg for permission to use their property. She does not want property owners using their land by right, but only with the approval of city officials.

Consider what will happen if city officials do not like your proposed use. They will render your judgment irrelevant, and if you do in fact act on your judgment, you will become a criminal, subject to fines and perhaps jail time. This is not a recognition of property rights, but the exact opposite.

Lovell's claims are worse than an evasion. She insists that those on both sides of the issue will "sit down and listen to each other." And what will be the nature of this "discussion"?

On one side--assuming that Lovell even seeks out a principled defender of property rights--will be those who recognize and defend each individual's moral right to his own life, liberty, and property. On the other side will be Lovell and her ilk--those who claim that they have a "right" to compel individuals to use their property in a particular manner. And Lovell will have the coercive power of government on her side.

Throughout the "negotiations" an implied threat will be omnipresent--property owners must comply with Lovell's dictates, or else. Property owners will be forced to cede their rights, or else. And when government is involved, "or else" means "go to jail".

If a private citizen attempted to "negotiate" using such tactics, his actions would rightfully be labeled blackmail. The principle does not change simply because a government official is making the threats--implied or otherwise. The principle does not change by hiding behind sticky sweet bromides like the "common good" or "protecting our heritage". The threat of force makes "negotiations" a mere facade.

The Chronicle reports that proposed changes to the preservation ordinance will "set the stage for a broad, and likely heated, debate about land use and the character of the city." I am doubtful.

More likely, any "debate" that occurs will center on the terms of compromise. The paper tells us that

The city plans to begin negotiating with developers, property owners and preservationists in the coming months about permanent changes to the law, a process Mayor Annise Parker, an advocate for stricter preservation controls, said is likely to end by September.

In other words, the city considers this a done deal and all that remains is to see what concessions it can squeeze out of property owners. Of course, city officials won't admit to any of this. They will continue to pretend that "government control is property rights". They will continue to engage in doublespeak.

Temporary Today, Permanent Tomorrow

Years ago, when city council was considering Houston's first historic preservation ordinance, I spoke before the council. The ordinance called for a 90-day "waiting period" before an "historic" building could be demolished. Council members considered this an acceptable compromise between preservationists who wanted stricter controls and property rights advocates who opposed any controls.

At that time, I pointed out that if one accepted the premise underlying the ordinance--that it is proper for council to violate property rights--it would only be a matter of time before somebody would demand a complete prohibition on demolitions of historic buildings. In a remarkable display of evasion, a council member remarked that he could not concern himself with what future councils decided.

My "prediction" is indeed coming true, as city council has enacted a "temporary" moratorium on any demolitions of in historic districts. According to the Chronicle, preservationists aren't happy with the current ordinance:

“The 90-day ordinance we have has not worked to preserve the historic character of the city of Houston,” said David Beale, a resident of the West Heights Historic District who has fought a development under way to build four homes where there once were two. “We need a better ordinance, we need a new ordinance, and this new temporary ordinance will give us the time that we need.”

The "compromise" reached on the original ordinance was a complete surrender--it established the principle that council could restrict or prohibit the demolition of buildings deemed historic, regardless of the desires or judgment of the property owner. That the ordinance established a 90-day waiting period was only a minor detail.

In principle, the ordinance stated that, for 90-days the city can dictate what a property owner can do. But what is so magic about 90-days? Why not 120-days, or 180-days, or 3-years, or forever? In principle, if 90-days is proper and just, then so is any amount of time.

The fact is, any controls on land-use that initiate force against property owners (as the preservation ordinance does) are improper and unjust. The preservation ordinance should not be strengthened; it should be repealed.