While many areas of the country are struggling through plummeting real estate values and the collapse of their building industry, Houston has escaped these travails. A large contributing factor is the city’s lack of zoning, which allows developers and property owners to react to market conditions without securing government permission.
Houston Chronicle columnist Loren Steffy recently wrote about this. A report issued by the Federal Reserve Bank of Dallas found “that a key reason Houston has avoided much of the housing crisis is because zoning keeps home prices higher”. You can read the entire article by clicking here. A longer article appeared in the May 28, 2008 Houston Chronicle.
Economic arguments against zoning are important. The economic consequences of zoning and other land use restrictions are one of the practical consequences of such laws. But the primary objection to zoning is moral in nature.
Zoning represents an initiation of force against the citizens of a community. Zoning imposes the values of some upon the entire community, and it is backed by government coercion. Zoning is a violation of individual rights, i.e., the right of each individual to pursue his values without intervention from others, including the government.
Houston’s housing market has remained affordable and vibrant because individuals have enjoyed relative freedom in land use. Developers and property owners have the freedom to make choices in land use, and consumers have the freedom to embrace or reject those uses. Unlike government bureaucrats, individuals react quickly and rationally to their personal values.
Houston has stood as a shining example of freedom throughout its history. Our current housing market is just one more consequence of that freedom.
© J. Brian Phillips 2008
Wednesday, May 28, 2008
Sunday, May 25, 2008
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.
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.
Sunday, May 18, 2008
Democracy and Rights
The newest survey by Rice University professor Dr. Stephen Klineberg shows that a majority of Houstonians’ favor additional land use restrictions. The results are being used to fuel a renewed debate over zoning and other land use controls. However, the debate is largely founded on a false premise. Those in favor of expanded government control over land use, and many of those opposed, imply that the desires of the majority should prevail. If the majority wants more restrictions, then it is right and proper. Some may argue that this is simply democracy in action. However, our Founding Fathers recognized that democracy is nothing more than a tyranny of the masses:
“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.” James Madison
“Democracy... while it lasts is more bloody than either [aristocracy or monarchy]. Remember, democracy never lasts long. It soon wastes, exhausts, and murders itself. There is never a democracy that did not commit suicide.” John Adams
“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.” Thomas Jefferson
Despite common perceptions, the Founders did not establish a democracy, but a constitutional republic. The Founders sought to protect the rights of individuals from the whims and passions of the majority. The individual, after all, is the smallest minority.
One of the most fundamental of rights is the right to property, that is, the right to own, use, and dispose of material values. The right to property means that the owner may use his property as he chooses, without interference from others. Of course, he must respect the mutual rights of others.
Those rights are not subject to a vote. The number of people espousing an idea, as James Madison wrote, does not determine the truth of that idea or the standard of right and wrong. The rights of the individual, including property rights, are sacrosanct.
Unlimited majority rule—i.e., democracy—allows the majority to do as it pleases because it is the majority. Principles such as individual rights get trampled in the process.
Our Founders understood the evils of democracy. It is time that we did so as well.
“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.” James Madison
“Democracy... while it lasts is more bloody than either [aristocracy or monarchy]. Remember, democracy never lasts long. It soon wastes, exhausts, and murders itself. There is never a democracy that did not commit suicide.” John Adams
“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.” Thomas Jefferson
Despite common perceptions, the Founders did not establish a democracy, but a constitutional republic. The Founders sought to protect the rights of individuals from the whims and passions of the majority. The individual, after all, is the smallest minority.
One of the most fundamental of rights is the right to property, that is, the right to own, use, and dispose of material values. The right to property means that the owner may use his property as he chooses, without interference from others. Of course, he must respect the mutual rights of others.
Those rights are not subject to a vote. The number of people espousing an idea, as James Madison wrote, does not determine the truth of that idea or the standard of right and wrong. The rights of the individual, including property rights, are sacrosanct.
Unlimited majority rule—i.e., democracy—allows the majority to do as it pleases because it is the majority. Principles such as individual rights get trampled in the process.
Our Founders understood the evils of democracy. It is time that we did so as well.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
