Principles and Planning

The following OpEd article was submitted to the Houston Chronicle.

Recent events, such as the release of Stephen Klineberg’s newest survey and the controversy over the Ashby High Rise, have provoked a renewed discussion over land use restrictions in Houston. While such discussions are important, they are meaningless unless they address fundamental principles.

Klineberg’s survey found that majority of Houstonians favor increased government control of land use. Politicians and pundits alike are citing this as justification for expanding City Hall’s powers. (See the May 4 Chronicle article, “Zoning’s not the issue for Houston” for the latest example.)

The premise underlying this position is that if the majority agrees to a particular policy, it must be right and proper. And therefore, the dictates of the majority may rightfully be imposed upon the rest of the city.

Some may argue that this is the democratic way. However, America was not founded as a democracy, but a constitutional republic. James Madison wrote, “There is no maxim, in my opinion, which is more liable to be misapplied, and which, therefore, more needs elucidation, than the current one, that the interest of the majority is the political standard of right and wrong”.

Thomas Jefferson echoed this sentiment: “A democracy is nothing more than mob rule, where fifty-one percent of the people may take away the rights of the other forty-nine.” Our Founders understood that democracy was nothing more than a tyranny of the masses.

The Founders sought to protect the rights of the minority from the passions and whims of the majority. They understood that the individual is the smallest minority, and thus they sought to protect the rights of individuals.

The right to property—the right to own, use, and dispose of material values—is one of the most fundamental rights. The right to property means the right to use your property as you choose, free from the dictates of others. (You may not use your property to violate the mutual rights of others.)

Land use restrictions—no matter what they are called, how they are justified, or the number of supporters—are a violation of property rights. They force the property owner to abide by the dictates of government in the use of his property. He may act, not by right, but by permission.

The current discussion of land use controls has focused on the need for greater planning in Houston’s development. The implication of such calls is that Houston’s growth has been unplanned. Apparently, the demagogues pushing this idea have not heard of New Territory, Cinco Ranch, and many other planned communities around Houston.

In the early 1990s zoning advocates pointed to such communities as evidence that Houstonians want planning. They ignored the fact that there is a fundamental difference between planned communities and zoning. Today’s current advocates of land use restrictions ignore the same fact.

Planned communities involve the voluntary consent of the property owners. Such communities use deed restrictions—i.e., contractual agreements. Zoning and similar land use controls use government power—i.e., coercion. There is a fundamental difference between the voluntary and the coerced.

Advocates of land use controls object to the planning conducted by individuals, and seek to replace it with central planning. They object to the choices make by some individuals (such as the Ashby High Rise), and seek to usurp individual choice with group choice.

The debate over land use restrictions involves much more than dirt and steel. It is about the rights of individuals. It is about the proper role of government.

Houston has traditionally respected property rights. Houston has grown and prospered because it has protected the right its citizens to use their property as they choose. Houston has protected the rights and freedoms of individuals.

Houstonians have an opportunity to retain that proud heritage. Houstonians again have an opportunity to assert their freedom. The debate over land use controls will be prolonged and heated. It is a debate that must focus on fundamental principles. Houstonians deserve nothing less.

© J. Brian Phillips 2008

Quotes on Property Rights

On Independence Day it is worth remembering what our Founding Fathers had to say about property rights.

“Among the natural rights of the colonists are these: First a right to life, secondly to liberty, and thirdly to property; together with the right to defend them in the best manner they can.” Samuel Adams

“Property is surely a right of mankind as real as liberty.” John Adams

“No power on earth has a right to take our property from us without our consent.” John Jay

“As a man is said to have a right to his property, he may be equally said to have a property in his rights.” James Madison

"A right to property is founded in our natural wants, in the means with which we are endowed to satisfy these wants, and the right to what we acquire by those means without violating the similar rights of other sensible beings." Thomas Jefferson

"Democracies have ever been spectacles of turbulence and contention; have ever been found incompatible with personal security or the rights of property; and have in general been as short in their lives as they have been violent in their death."
James Madison

"All men are created equally free and independent, and have certain inherent rights, of which they cannot, by any compact, deprive or divest their posterity; among which are the enjoyment of life and liberty, with the means of acquiring and possessing property, and pursuing the obtaining of happiness and safety."
George Mason

"To take from one because it is thought that his own industry and that of his father's has acquired too much, in order to spare to others, who, or whose fathers have not exercised equal industry and skill, is to violate arbitrarily the first principle of association--'the guarantee to every one of a free exercise of his industry and the fruits acquired by it.'" Thomas Jefferson


And a few notable quotes from others:

“Ultimately property rights and personal rights are the same thing.” Calvin Coolidge

“The Right of property is the guardian of every other Right, and to deprive the people of this, is in fact to deprive them of their Liberty.” Arthur Lee

“Just as man can't exist without his body, so no rights can exist without the right to translate one's rights into reality, to think, to work and keep the results, which means: the right of property.” Ayn Rand

“Next to the right of liberty, the right of property is the most important individual right guaranteed by the Constitution and the one which, united with that of personal liberty, has contributed more to the growth of civilization than any other institution established by the human race.” William Howard Taft

“If history could teach us anything, it would be that private property is inextricably linked with civilization.”Ludwig von Mises

“The reason why men enter into society is the preservation of their property.” John Locke

“So great moreover is the regard of the law for private property, that it will not authorize the least violation of it; no, not even for the general good of the whole community. “ William Blackstone

"The system of private property is the most important guaranty of freedom, not only for those who own property, but scarcely less for those who do not." Fredrich Hayek

Protecting Neighborhoods

Zoning advocates like to make lots of noises about how zoning will protect neighborhoods. Who could possibly be against that? Few people want to live in a crime infested neighborhood, or have neighbors with dilapidated cars in the front yard.

But like most advocates of government coercion, zoning supporters don’t acknowledge how they will protect neighborhoods. They don’t tell us the means by which they will achieve their ends. They want us to believe that the ends are so beneficial and so widely supported that the means are irrelevant.

But the ends do not justify the means. Any ends that require the initiation of force as their means are not justified. And this is precisely what zoning does.

Zoning imposes restrictions on how you may use your property. Under zoning, you may use your property, not by right, but only with the permission of zoning officials. And if you violate their edicts, you are subject to fines and/ or jail time.

What this means is that if you build a shed that violates zoning codes, you could go to jail. If you install shutters that violate the zoning code, you could be fined. If you do anything on your property that zoning officials do not approve, you become a criminal.

To be “democratic” and “empower the people” zoning officials solicit input from neighbors during zoning hearings. Typically, if neighbors disapprove of your intended use, zoning officials will reject it. Which means, your neighbors will have a greater voice in the use of your property than you will.

Personally, I would much rather have neighbors with junky cars in the front yard than neighbors who tell me how to use my property. Junky cars are ugly. Power lusting neighbors are equally ugly, and also immoral.

© J. Brian Phillips 2008