Infected Dirt and Horse Massages

I have previously written about occupational licensing as method by which those within a profession use coercion to limit competitors and increase their own income. A recent article in The Freeman provides further evidence, and shows how absurd licensing laws can be.

In Louisiana it is illegal to sell and arrange flowers without a permit from the government. An appeals court upheld the licensing requirement because it might help protect the public from "infected dirt". As an avid gardener, I'm not certain what "infected dirt" is, but I certainly don't need a legislator protecting me from it. Are they going to outlaw hibiscus next because they attract aphids? And I have never bought a flower arrangement that came in dirt, which is more evidence that the Louisiana legislature (and the appellate court) has its head somewhere much more odoriferous than "infected dirt".

The silliness doesn't end there. The state of Maryland threatened Mercedes Clemens with thousands of dollars in fines and criminal prosecution unless she quit massaging horses. Interest groups managed to pass a bill that requires four years of veterinary school for anyone who wishes to massage horses. They passed this requirement despite the fact that veterinary schools do not teach how to massage horses. Clemens is a licensed human-massage therapist and certified in equine massage. (I have a cat who enjoys massages-- I wonder if I need a license to massage her.)

Occupational licensing is always defended as a means of protecting the public from unscrupulous businesses. But the real crime is that such laws prevent decent people--and very qualified people in the case of Mercedes Clemens--from earning an honest living.

The right to life--which is the most fundamental of all rights--means the right to take the actions necessary to sustain and enjoy one's life. It means the freedom to act without interference from others, so long as one respects the mutual rights of others. To deny an individual that right is to deny him the means to sustain his life. Yet, life requires action to create the values necessary to live. If one cannot take the necessary actions, one can only live as a parasite. And it is dependency that government controls such as occupational licensing are intended to ultimately foster.

The justification for licensing--to protect the public-- treats individuals as criminals before the fact. An individual is considered incompetent and untrustworthy until he proves otherwise. He must meet whatever arbitrary criteria the state establishes, and if he doesn't he is prohibited from working in his chosen field. He is prohibited from earning a living until the state grants him permission to do so.

The flip side of this is that it treats consumers as bumbling fools. The implication of "protecting the public" is that the public must be protected from its own decisions and actions. Individuals are not competent to choose who should arrange their flowers or massage their horse. We must have the state make that determination for us. This paternalism is insulting on every level-- it regards all individuals as children.

The fault does not lie entirely with legislators. The public--or at least portions of the public--demands such regulations and controls. Each special interest group fights to protect its little piece of turf and impose its values on the rest of society. And at the same time, hundreds of other groups are doing the same. As legislators cave to the demands of group after group, the rights of all individuals are slowly eroded.

The erosion of individual rights coincides with an erosion of individual responsibility. If we are incapable of judging for ourselves, we cannot be responsible for those few decisions we are allowed to make. Legislators and the court system are more than willing to absolve individuals for any personal responsibility. It's not your fault you spilled coffee in your lap--it's the fault of the business that you voluntarily drove to and from whom you voluntarily purchased coffee. It's not your fault that you are fat--it's the fault of that burger joint that you went to five times a day and super sized the fries. It's not your fault that you can't find a job--it's the fault of a racist system that refuses to hire unskilled, illiterate ex-convicts.

It can sometimes be easy to blame legislators for passing inane laws or the courts for unprincipled rulings. But in a very real sense they do reflect the "will of the people". They are reflecting the ideas that dominate the culture. If we want to change the laws that are passed or the rulings issued by the courts, then we must change the ideas that dominate our culture. Then, and only then, will we get sensible legislators and judges. Only then will the rights of individuals be protected.

Integrity and Eminent Domain

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

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

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

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


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


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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Breaking a Few Eggs

I have previously written how the Texas Open Beaches Act may be used to prohibit beach front property owners from rebuilding their homes in the wake of Hurricane Ike. This is bad enough, but California officials are attempting to force George and Sharlee McNamee to remove a shower, thatched palapa, and an ornamental sign from their yard. According to the Orange County Register

In a much-publicized case, the California Coastal Commission has declared that the yard's embellishments – from shelving to rose bushes – are illegal coastal development and must be ripped out.

The Commission is claiming that the McNamees did not obtain permission to install these items. The LA Times reports:

It doesn't matter that the improvements are on the McNamees' property. Under the 1976 Coastal Act, private and public shorefront property are subject to state regulation to protect the environment and ensure public beach access.

In the McNamees' case, the state says their recreational amenities involved unpermitted grading and damage to the bluff, and gives the perception of a private beach -- intimidating beachgoers into avoiding the public sand nearby.

Interestingly, the Coastal Act allows the state to regulate private beach property, and a part of that regulation is to prohibit anyone from creating "the perception of a private beach". In other words, the state "recognizes" that it is private property and forces the property owner to pay taxes on it, but wants everyone to pretend that it is public property.

The right to property is the right of use and disposal. The right to property means that the owner has control over the property and its use. Ownership without control is meaningless. The state wants the McNamees to assume all of the responsibilities of ownership--including taxes--but denies them any control over their property. This facade of ownership is the defining characteristic of fascism.

If this weren't such a serious issue, the state's claim that a shower, grill, and flower bed intimidates beach goers would be comical. The state is concerned that someone may avoid a public beach because of a flower garden, but it cares little about the rights of the McNamees. And if it's not bad enough that they may have to remove their accoutrements, they are facing fines of $6,000 per day for violating the state's mandates.

Mark Massara, director of the Sierra Club's coastal programs, expresses no sympathy for the McNamees:

This is not about a picnic table and not entirely about the McNamees. This is about unpermitted cabinets, stoves, water lines and gas lines running up the hillside, and showers -- pervasive, unpermitted development...

The Coastal Commission has been nothing but accommodating to these people, allowing them to maintain this illegal development for years and years and years while the McNamees sue the Coastal Commission.

This type of arrogance is not surprising from an environmentalist movement that ascribes rights to trees, rivers, and animals, but not human beings. While proclaiming that they want to protect the environment for future generations, they destroy the lives of the existing generations.

Massara is surprisingly candid when he states that this is "not entirely about the McNamees." The McNamees just happen to be the latest victims. This is really about destroying man's ability to alter the environment, which means, destroying man's ability to live.

Only by altering our environment can we create the values necessary to live and enjoy life. We alter our environment when we plant crops, dig minerals, cut down trees, dam rivers, erect electrical wires, and virtually every other activity humans engage in. Property rights protect those who engage in such efforts.

The right to property is the practical implementation of individual rights. Without property rights, the right to freedom of speech cannot be implemented--one could not obtain or control the means to print or broadcast or otherwise disperse one's thoughts. Without property rights, one could not possess the means of self-defense. Without property rights, one does not have the means to sustain and enjoy his life. Every form of tyranny begins by destroying property rights, and with them, the ability of individuals to act and live independently.

The California Coastal Commission has complete control over land use within their jurisdiction:

The Coastal Act includes specific policies (see Division 20 of the Public Resources Code) that address issues such as shoreline public access and recreation, lower cost visitor accommodations, terrestrial and marine habitat protection, visual resources, landform alteration, agricultural lands, commercial fisheries, industrial uses, water quality, offshore oil and gas development, transportation, development design, power plants, ports, and public works. The policies of the Coastal Act constitute the statutory standards applied to planning and regulatory decisions made by the Commission and by local governments, pursuant to the Coastal Act.

There is no land use that could not be classified in one of the categories listed in the Coastal Act. Which means, there is no land use that does not require the permission of the Coastal Commission. Which means, property owners cannot use their land as they choose, but only as dictated by the Coastal Commission.

Supposedly, Mao Tse-tung defended his policy of murdering opponents by saying, "You have to break a few eggs to make an omelet." The Coastal Commission and environmentalists don't mind breaking a few eggs either. And those eggs just happen to be the lives of individual human beings, such as the McNamees.

Zoning Horror Stories, Part 2

If the stories weren’t true, they would almost be comical. My comments are, in case it isn't obvious, sarcastic. All of these stories come from an article by James Bovard:

Flosmoor, Illinois, in an act of legislative snobbery, banned pickup trucks from its streets — and even from private driveways. Coral Gables, Florida, charges residents $35 to get a permit to paint the bathroom in their home — or the living room, or any other room. Local building inspectors patrol the streets looking for painting trucks parked at homes that have not paid the permit fee.

I am sure that the residents of Coral Gables sleep well at night knowing that their neighbors have paid the appropriate fees to have their bathroom painted. I know I stay up at night worrying about such things.

Los Angeles prohibits freelance writers from working out of their homes in residential neighborhoods, fearing that the tap-tap-tap of their keyboards could devastate the quality of life in their neighborhoods. Similarly, Chicago issued a cease-and-desist order to a couple using two personal computers in their home to write software and magazine articles.

I am sure that the incredible volume of noise generated by the keyboards was threatening the character of the neighborhoods, destroying the quality of life there, and diminishing property values.

Pasadena, California, banned residents from having weeds in their yards, a policy sometimes referred to as "crabgrass fascism."

There is nothing quite so frustrating as neighbors with weeds in their yard. Since gardeners generally define a weed as a plant that you do not want, would the city inspector who enforces this absurd law be considered a weed?

The Office of Code Enforcement in Alexandria, Virginia, sent certified letters to twenty-two homeowners in June 1993 threatening to condemn their properties unless they fixed chipping paint on their window sills or door frames.

I seem to recall an episode on HGTV where a house collapsed because of peeling paint on a window sill. These city officials likely saved countless lives.

A Princeton, New Jersey, store owner was threatened with a 90-day jail sentence in 1993 for the crime of having a few barbecue grills lined up in front of his hardware store. Though Irving Urken had put the grills and other goods outside his store for 57 years, a new zoning ordinance banned anything in front of the store — except books, flowers, plants, vegetables, and newspapers.

Barbecue grills are so much less attractive that flowers. No wonder this business owner has only managed to make it 57 years-- he has such unattractive displays outside of his store that it is a wonder anyone would patronize his store.

East Hampton, Long Island, issued a warrant for the arrest of a food-shop owner guilty of an unauthorized exhibition of large orange gourds. Jerry Della Femina, the co-owner of a local market, had a few dozen pumpkins stacked in front of his store. Village bureaucrats ruled that the pumpkins were the equivalent of a sign advertising the sale of pumpkins, and thus the owner needed a sign permit. The shop was in a historic district, and government officials may have thought that similar markets in East Hampton in the 19th century never placed pumpkins in front of their stores.

Pumpkins are signs. I've seen orange signs before. What was this market owner thinking to advertise what he is selling? He might actually entice some mindless consumer to purchase his products. I am sure that consumers would much prefer to purchase a permit to have their bathroom painted, rather than a pumpkin.

In September 1993, the New York City buildings commissioner bushwhacked Fordham University. Fordham had received permission from the city government to build a 480-foot radio tower at its campus in the Bronx. After the radio tower was almost half finished, the city government reversed its position and revoked the building permit. The government's action cost Fordham over half-a-million dollars.

That NYC building commissioner is such a practical joker. "Sure, you can build a tower. Just kidding, I had my fingers crossed."

Newtown Borough, Pennsylvania, requires citizens to pay a $10,000 nonrefundable fee in order to challenge the constitutionality of the local zoning ordinance.

How dare citizens question the authority of zoning officials? Don't they know that they have no rights and should meekly submit to the dictates of those officials?

None of this, of course, could never happen in Houston. Our public officials-- like Chuck Rosenthal, the HPD crime lab, those involved in the City Hall bonus scandal-- are completely above reproach and we can always trust them to make better decisions regarding our lives than we can.

Zoning Horror Stories

Zoning advocates make many claims about the benefits of imposing land use restrictions on property owners. But they conveniently ignore both the immorality and destructive consequences of zoning. In other cities, zoning has destroyed lives, wrecked dreams, and harmed individuals. The same will ultimately happen in Houston if zoning is enacted.

In Mt. Laurel, New Jersey, zoning was systematically used during the late 1970s and early 1980s to drive the town's small black population out of the community

An elderly couple in Provo, Utah wanted to hire a live-in caretaker to help them maintain their home and assist them with health issues. A zoning ordinance allows home owners to have live-in help, but not a second kitchen. They were forced to abandon their plans.

In Fairfax, VA a golf range owner was jailed for 98 days and fined $48,000 for violating a zoning ordinance pertaining to landscaping. A lien was also placed on his property.

A Santa Monica, CA resident sought to build an addition to his home. After 15 months and $30,000 in expenses, he abandoned the project because of continued delays imposed by the City’s Planning Department.

These stories are not isolated examples. They occur in every city with zoning. The very nature of zoning vests zoning officials with immense powers and those powers are often used to inflict harm on citizens.

Zoning proponents may call the examples cited above “scare tactics”. They may claim that such things would not happen in Houston. They may claim that zoning officials in Houston will not succumb to the temptations offered by such political power.

Such claims however, are an evasion of the fact that there are principles which underlie zoning, and those principles can be used to predict the consequences of zoning in Houston. Zoning, by its very nature, is a violation of property rights and destructive to human welfare.

Some Houstonians may have benevolent intentions by proposing a zoning ordinance. They may believe that zoning will improve Houston. But can they guarantee that their successors will wield power with benevolence and good intentions? Can they guarantee that future zoning officials will not use their power for malicious purposes?

If they cannot make such a guarantee—which they can’t—we must question their motivations. We must wonder why they would desire such absolute control over land use when the horrors of zoning are so well documented. We must wonder why they seek to grant such power to successors whose motivations are unknown. We must wonder why.

The premise underlying zoning is that individuals should sacrifice their values for the “welfare” of the community. This is precisely what occurs in every city that has zoning. When individuals do not do so willingly, they are jailed, fined, and/ or their property is seized.

To deny the horrors of zoning is intellectually dishonest. To pretend that some Houstonians will not be forced to sacrifice their values is equally dishonest. There will be victims of zoning.

Are you willing to be one of those victims? We aren’t.