Sustainable Development

Sunday's Chronicle features an OpEd by Jim Blackburn, an environmental attorney practicing in Houston and professor of the practice of environmental law in the Civil and Environmental Engineering Department at Rice University. Blackburn's article laments the lack of planning in the Houston-Galveston area, and he worries that future hurricanes are going to create more problems in the area.

What we need are bold initiatives that attempt to come to grips with a number of issues, including rising sea levels, the prospect of more severe and perhaps more frequent storm events, storm surges that easily can exceed 20 feet and rainfall events dumping 20 or more inches of rain in a 24 hour period. Oh, and we probably should figure on less money being available from the government in the future, given that Wall Street and the automobile makers have sucked the financial marrow remaining after Iraq.

Blackburn argues that we need more regulations limiting development along the coast, rather than continue to sink millions, or billions, of dollars into rebuilding storm ravaged areas. While acknowledging that Texans are not big fans of regulations, he wonders if "we have enough people living in hurricane evacuation zones". He obviously thinks we have too many, and he wants to use the coercive power of government to change that fact.

Do we really want to encourage rebuilding or new development in these hazard zones? Do we really want to put our money into infrastructure in these areas? Do we want to spend millions if not billions of dollars trying to settle areas that may simply be too dangerous for permanent residents?

Blackburn's argument is founded on statism-- government controls as the solution to every problem, real or imagined. He implies that government should be intimately involved in development, infrastructure, storm relief, etc. And since our government is running short on money, it is better to prohibit development along the coast and use the money elsewhere. The idea that maybe government shouldn't be involved in these issues is completely foreign to him.

The solution isn't to ban development, or set more stringent building codes, or anything of the sort. The solution is to get the government out of the way-- let the property owners make the decisions for rebuilding, and allow them to be responsible for the consequences.

If someone wishes to build on the coast, he should have the right to do so. But he should not have the right to force others to subsidize his insurance or rebuild his home after a storm. If he judges that the joy of owning a home on the coast is worth the risk, he should be allowed to act on his judgment. But he should not be allowed to force others to act against their judgment, that is, pay for the consequences of his decisions.

Blackburn thinks we should have a serious debate on this subject, about the only point on which I agree.

Our country does not have the financial reserves that we once did. We cannot afford to build and rebuild and rebuild yet again in the same place with the same result. I do not believe that the federal government will continue to bail us out for bad development thinking, for our lack of regulation, for our unwillingness to ask hard questions and find hard answers.

The questions are not all that hard. Why should individuals be prevented from pursuing their own values? Why should the judgment of government officials be imposed upon others? Why should all taxpayers be forced to subsidize the lives of those who build on the coast? Why do all "solutions" invariably involve more government power?

The answers aren't very difficult either. There is no valid reason that individuals should be prohibited from pursuing their values, so long as they respect the mutual rights of others. Individuals have a moral right to act according to their own judgment; they do not have a right to compel others to bail them out if their judgment is flawed or they don't like the results. More government controls are the inevitable "solution" when one embraces altruism/ collectivism.

Ultimately, we need a sustainable development concept for the Texas coast, one that is sound and safe, that will protect the residents, our social structure, our economic structure and our ecological structure. And the stakes are serious. We could easily see thousands of people killed and hundreds of billions of dollars in damage. Nothing less than the long-term economic future of our region is at stake.

Why is it necessary that we have a "development concept" that is "safe" and "will protect the residents"? If individuals want to engage in behavior that is not safe, why is that Blackburn's concern? More importantly, why does he think that he has a right to use coercion to keep them safe?

Blackburn doesn't explicitly say, but the only possible justification is altruism. Altruism holds that sacrifice is the standard of morality, that the individual must place the needs of others before his own needs and desires. The individual must act with the interests of others in mind, rather than his own interests. And those who refuse to do so "voluntarily" may properly be forced to do so.

Blackburn accepts the idea that government must be involved in every aspect of coastal developments--from infrastructure to rebuilding after storms. It is only proper for government to compel individuals to forgo their selfish desire to live on the coast. This will serve the "public interest" by saving money.

Saving thousands of lives and billions of dollars in damage might sound like a reasonable goal. But Blackburn's method is to use force to prohibit individuals from building on their property, pursuing their values, acting according to their own judgment. In short, he wants to save lives and money by ruining lives and dreams, and by destroying investments.

If Blackburn and his ilk really cared about human welfare they would be advocating greater individual freedom. They would be calling for fewer regulations, not more. They would be arguing for government to end insurance subsidies, which alone would likely curtail development along the coast. They would demand that coastal home owners bear the consequences of their decisions, rather than impose those decisions upon all tax payers.

Government intervention is a large part of the cause of coastal development. By offering below market insurance, the government encourages behavior that the market deems unreasonable. Then, in the aftermath of storms, the government further encourages such behavior by subsidizing recovery efforts. When those costs mushroom, many then respond by calling for more government intervention. But enacting more of the cause will not resolve a problem. It will give you more of the problem.

Government intervention distorts decision making. It can discourage or prohibit rational decisions, and encourage or require irrational decisions. The solution is to allow each individual to make his own decisions and accept the consequences.

A Fool and His Rights are Soon Parted

A recent article in the Houston Chronicle addressed the Texas Open Beaches Act (TOBA) which may be used to seize the property of land owners along the coast. (See my previous posts Texas Open Beaches Act, Part 2 and The Pen is Mightier than the Storm Surge for more details.) Reader comments to the article were overwhelming in favor of TOBA and expressed little sympathy for the property owners. A few excerpts:

Without the Texas Open Beaches Act, there would be virtually no access to beaches on Galveston's West End or other Texas barrier islands. It infuriates me that people who build on the beach believe they OWN the beach, and nobody else gets to use it.

It most likely also infuriates this person that someone OWNS a BMW or a home in River Oaks. How dare someone think that others can't use their automobile or their home. How dare someone work to achieve anything in life and then think that he has exclusive rights to it. It was precisely this prima donna attitude towards achievement and property rights that has created all of America's "ills"-- such as economic prosperity and individual freedom.

You have to draw a line somewheres. Vegetation line seems to be right.

The property line seems like a good place to me. That is much more objective and not subject to the whim of bureaucrats in Austin or the vagarities of nature. But we wouldn't want objectivity to enter into the discussion, because that would interfere with the desires of these beach lovers.

As it is, Texas does little enough to protect the right of the people of Texas to access to Gulf beaches. As has been said, anyone who builds close to the vegetation line knows what the risks are. It is much harder to be sorry for them than for all the people who took out loans they could not afford. The rights of the people of Texas are far greater than protecting a few from the consequences of their foolish choices.

I have posted before that statist policies that violate property rights are founded on the premise that the individual must sacrifice to the group. The above is more evidence of this. More interesting to me is the perverse attitude expressed. The writer feels sorry for people who were irresponsible and took out loans that they could not afford, but feels no sympathy for those whose property was destroyed by a storm. Further, the "people of Texas" is really nothing more than the individuals who live in the state. If the rights of individuals-- all individuals-- can be violated, then who is going to benefit?

The Open Beaches Act was originally drafted by wise men with foresight when old man Schlumberger built a home right on the beach in Galveston (if memory serves me right) impeding beach traffic and access. It was unconstitutional that beach access is ever denied to anyone.

I've read the Constitution lots of times and I can't find a clause that says anything about beach access. Perhaps it was in the 11th Amendment proposed after the ratification of the Constitution: "Congress shall make no laws restricting the free access to beaches, sun tans, and to the internet." I could see why that Amendment was not ratified, as undoubtedly the Founders were confused as to the meaning of "internet". But perhaps more importantly, they were principled defenders of property rights.

I must admit that I was a little surprised at the animosity and absolute lack of sympathy for the property owners. I am uncertain if that attitude is caused by ignorance of property rights or envy, but I suspect is a combination.

TOBA is what keeps Texas beaches from becoming like Cape Cod. We've got the Bush's, lord knows we don't need Kennedy's as well!

I agree that Texas doesn't need the Kennedy's, but I seriously doubt that the comment was aimed at their socialistic policies. It was aimed at the wealthy, and the Bush's and Kennedy's just happened to be easy names to attach.

The reader comments, almost without exception, missed the entire point. They opposed using tax dollars to rebuild the destroyed homes. I am opposed to that as well. The comments repeatedly stated that the property owners were fools and got what they deserved. In other words, since it is foolish to build on the beach, the state has a right to seize the property.

Building on the beach may be foolish-- I don't think it is, but that isn't the issue. The issue is the propriety of the State seizing property simply because the vegetation line moved. The issue is property rights.

Foolishness is not illegal, nor should it be. If it were, most people would be deemed criminals at some point in their lives. I think it is foolish to drive without a seat belt, drink to excess, or embrace socialistic ideas. But I would not begin to think to deprive someone of the right to make decisions for himself. I would not begin to think to force my values upon another person. I don't want it done to me.

Further, there is no right to beach access. A right pertains to action. It is a sanction to act without interference from others, so long as you respect their mutual right. To claim that one has a right to beach access is to demand that others provide that access, and if force is required so be it. To demand a "right" that is exercised at the point of a gun is worse than a contradiction-- it is a complete inversion of rights.

Those who would so willingly (and gleefully) sacrifice the rights of others seldom seem to realize that they are endorsing their own enslavement. If they do not defend individual rights (including property rights) as a matter of principle, they have no valid argument when someone else demands a violation of their rights. And this is precisely what modern politics has become.

It takes little more than a cursory examination of virtually any political issue to see that one group is demanding that the rights of others be violated. At the same time, others are seeking to violate the first group's rights. The political process is little more than a battle to violate the rights of others, all in the name of some alleged public good. In the end, nobody's rights are secure. In the end, a fool and his rights are soon parted.

Another Sign of Ike

Ike's winds did more than knock down trees and power lines. It also damaged hundreds of outdoor signs. According to an article in the Houston Chronicle:

For billboards, the city ordinance says that if the cost of repairing the weather damage is more than 60 percent of the cost of erecting a new sign, the billboard comes down. For business signs grandfathered at sizes larger or taller than what is now allowed, the rule is similar — those signs most be rebuilt smaller and conforming if the damage repair would cost more than 60 percent of the cost of building a new sign.

The anti-sign movement, led by Scenic Houston, seeks to rid the city of billboards and similar "clutter". From their web site:

Scenic Houston works to reduce existing billboard blight, prevent new billboard construction, foster attractive on-premise signage, incorporate context sensitive design in the planning of highways and other public projects, and protect the natural beauty and distinctive character of our communities for the benefit of successive generations.

As with many other groups, they don't like something and seek to use government coercion to impose their likes and dislikes on the rest of the city. The rights and preferences of the property owner are swept away like storm surge.

As is often the case with these mini-tyrants, patience has been their ally. The anti-billboard movement has been active in Houston since 1966. It has slowly but consistently pushed for ever tougher restrictions on outdoor signs. Each time they propose tougher restrictions they are willing to compromise, because each compromise moves them closer to their ultimate goal.

The sign industry has opposed these restrictions, but continues to compromise itself out of existence. For example, when it was proposed that downtown Houston be designated a scenic district and therefore off limits to billboards, according to the Houston Business Journal the sign industry did not complain:

Representatives of Clear Channel Communications Inc., which dominates nearly 80 percent of the local outdoor advertising market, say they aren't against creation of the downtown district.

The reason, however, has more to do with simple economics than ethical considerations. Historically, they say, downtown billboards haven't proven that profitable or effective.

So they abandon the moral high ground-- that is, their right to conduct business without intervention from the government-- simply because downtown isn't a profitable location for signs. What if that were to change? And how will they respond when an area that is profitable is targeted to be designated as a scenic district?

Most likely they will try to make an economic argument. But having surrendered the moral high ground, having refused to defend their rights in the past, such arguments will hold little power. They will be accused of being greedy, of being interested in nothing more than "the almighty dollar", or something similar. And all they will have as a response is the number of jobs that billboards create.

For too long Houston businesses have refused to defend their rights. For too long they have willingly sacrificed their values to those of some noisy gang. For too long they have attempted to compromise themselves out of controversy. In the end, they will have no rights, and thus be unable to pursue their values. They are compromising themselves out of existence.

If Houston businesses, and the outdoor sign industry in particular, wishes to have a future, they must begin defending themselves on a moral basis. They must assert their right to live free from the dictates of others. They must declare their right pursue their values. They must reject the premise that their businesses, their values, and their lives can be sacrificed. Then and only then, will their future be secure.

For more on the Houston sign ordinance, and a brief history of property rights issues in Houston, see my article in The Freeman, published in 1990.

Look What Else Ike Blew In

As another example of how government meddling in the economy creates widespread problems for consumers and taxpayers, the Texas Public Policy Foundation (hat tip to Houston Conservative) writes on Texas insurance rates:

Consider the current funding crisis of the Texas Windstorm Insurance Association (TWIA), the state’s provider of windstorm insurance. Because of below-market rates and a corresponding failure to enforce TWIA’s status as the state’s provider of last resort for windstorm insurance, TWIA has seen an explosion in the number of policies in force and in its overall exposure. As of August 31, 2008, there were 224,468 TWIA policies in force – up from 68,756 in 2001– and TWIA’s total exposure was $66.6 billion.

However, prior to Hurricane Ike, TWIA could cover less than $2.1 billion in losses. As claims from Ike will eclipse TWIA’s reserves, Texas taxpayers will be forced to bail out the state for losses that should have been covered by TWIA were reasonable policies in place.

As with flood insurance, the government stepped in to provide below market insurance for property owners. When disaster strikes, those below market rates force the government to use taxpayer money to make up the difference.

Such government government programs are wrong on several levels.

First, the government should not be in the insurance business. Government's proper purpose is the protection of individual rights, not providing insurance, education, mail delivery, or most of the other things government currently attempts to do.

Second, economically such programs make absolutely no sense. If the government is providing insurance at below market levels, that clearly tells us that this is a money losing venture. Of course, the government cannot lose money because it has the seemingly endless supply of tax dollars at its disposal.

Third, robbing Peter to pay Paul is always immoral, no matter what justification one attempts. (More fundamentally, all robbery is wrong.) Forcing taxpayers to subsidize insurance means that some benefit at the expense of others. You may think this is fine if you are one of the beneficiaries, but you should remember that countless other groups are trying to benefit at your expense.

The answer isn't a better process for choosing the winners and losers. The answer is to allow each individual to make the choices that affect his life and allow him to act accordingly. The answer is to prohibit one individual from compelling another to provide for his well-being. The answer is to hold individuals accountable, and allow them to prosper or fail based on the merits of their decisions and actions.

This of course, means abolishing every form of welfare and entitlement program, including government insurance programs and Wall Street "rescue plans". But that won't occur until individuals refuse to accept the unearned. That won't occur until individuals refuse to demand that some must sacrifice for the benefit of others.

Philosophical Lessons from Ike

The following essay was written by Warren S. Ross.

There are some extraordinary philosophical lessons to learn from hurricane Ike, for those attentive and philosophically astute to learn them. In this dire emergency, caused by the direct hit of a near category 3 hurricane on the fourth largest city in the country, more than two million people were without power, an entire nearby resort island (Galveston) was demolished by flood waters, and food, water and power were in short supply for several days to a few weeks. Some observations about the aftermath of Ike are worth cataloging as a preliminary:

· Even the most basic necessity – water – depends on the continuous use of machinery – pumps – to keep the positive pressure to ensure no bacterial intrusion. Clean water also depends on chemistry – chemicals such as chlorine to kill bacteria, plastics to bottle the clean water people must drink when tap water is nonpotable; the science of chemistry to identify, test for and understand the medical implications of ingesting a whole host of naturally occurring microorganisms. When for four days Houston had low water pressure and had not completed the myriad of testing required to be rationally certain of purity, Houstonians had to boil water or drink bottled water.

· A lengthy causal sequence is required to supply the potable water and basic food needs of a city. The pumps that keep positive water pressure are driven by electricity, which in turn is generated by the burning of hydrocarbons, and the transmission of the generated electricity to the plant that houses the pumps and cleans the water. Without the transmission means (high tension power lines, connected by a complex network of switches and directed by computers, cumulatively called “the grid”), or without the hydrocarbons, the water cannot be produced for human consumption. The food needs of a city are delivered by those who use the hydrocarbons (fuel for the trucks) to bring the food from the point of original production to the warehouses and ultimately grocery stores that supply them to ultimate consumers. Part of what is needed to complete this process of production is electricity to drive the pumps that pump fuel at fuel stations into trucks, as well as electricity to light and most importantly refrigerate the warehouses and grocery stores. Additionally what is needed is a network of interconnecting roadways from farms to points of distribution.

· The causal sequence is not only lengthy but complexly organized in mutually enhancing circles. For example, electricity is produced from hydrocarbons but electricity is needed to dispense hydrocarbons.

· The mayor of Houston, Mayor White, as well as his counterparts at the county
level, have an unusually good grasp of these issues, at least at the economic level. Mayor White admonished the media, who were accusingly asking why the government “points of distribution” – PODs – were not up and running faster, that it makes no sense to deliver food to a location without a means of access by either trucks or the public. He also had to remind the media that a service station may have fuel but it is useless if the service station has no electricity (this in response to accusing questions as to why fuel trucks weren’t bringing gasoline to all service stations). Like ignorant third graders, the media were petulantly demanding everything “now,” and the mayor reviewed for them these basic facts about the logical hierarchy of production.

· Mayor White is an unusual man, a democrat but originally a businessman rather than a career politician. He understands not only these economic issues but some fundamental moral and political issues as well. He praised Houstonians for acting responsibly to assess and remediate their own situation, not waiting for government to do it but doing it on their own (clearing streets, removing trees, checking on neighbors and helping them through the emergency). He used the word “individual” repeatedly, stating that individual responsibility and effort were what set Houstonians apart from others (an oblique but generally well understood reference to the angry mobs of lethargic welfare recipients crying for government aid and egged on by politicians in the New Orleans Katrina debacle). White told one reporter that no one needs government permission to help a neighbor or friend. He told another that the private sector was the ultimate “point of distribution” in the form of grocery stores and fuel stations, not the small number of government PODs. Mayor White also repeatedly stated that the primary agent of restoring power is not the government but a private company – Centerpoint Energy. Although the Mayor was understandably frustrated with the slow pace ofrestoring power, he never once harangued Centerpoint Energy or tried to threaten or bully it. He never hinted at a “takeover” or accused it of greed or incompetence (nor did he menacingly assert that its management was being overpaid). He let Centerpoint, and encouraged citizens to let it, do its job. I do not agree with a lot of what Mayor White has done in his administration – increased taxes, attacked private property in the form of “land use” restrictions and attacks on sexually oriented businesses – but I am convinced from his actions during this crisis that at some level he is pro-reason, pro-individual, and pro-free market.

· Centerpoint Energy did and is doing an extraordinary job of restoring power, reconnecting half a million customers within two days, then incrementally expanding coverage by about 100,000 per day. This company, with its expertise at maintaining the infrastructure of a complex power grid, has organized skilled workers and machinery in a truly remarkable effort analogous to a military campaign. Bringing in linemen from across the state, the country and even from Canada, staging them in 24-hour-per-day shifts, fueling their trucks, feeding and housing them, organizing their effort in a rationally hierarchy of restoration (attack that part of the problem which affects the most customers first, then the next most customers, etc.), is a truly gargantuan effort of productive achievement.

Here are some of the deeper philosophical lessons to be drawn from the above:

· Man’s life depends on modern industrial civilization, with its complex chain of production, its reliance on machinery and chemicals and oil drilling and roads – all the disruptions to raw “nature” that the environmentalists are continuously complaining
about.

· Man’s mind, used rationally to solve the problems of life, is the fundamental means of survival, not welfare handouts. An extraordinary amount can be achieved by individual effort with or without government aid. In fact, comparing Houston to New Orleans (where government at the city, state and national levels was predominantly in the position of responsibility) is a textbook experiment in the differences between the two types of aid, and their consequences. As one concrete illustration, consider that three years after Katrina New Orleans is still not rebuilt and that the media report that 2300 homes that have been rebuilt are built below the physically necessary elevation to survive another flood. Only a welfare-type mentality, confident that government will once again bail him out of the risk taken by rebuilding irrationally, would act in such a way.

· Government aid is quite possibly dispensable, even the short duration emergency type aid everyone has come to expect, if industry with its motive of profit and its knowledge and capability in this complex causal sequence is permitted to act
without restrictions.

· The truly gargantuan achievements referred to above with respect to Centerpoint Energy, but equally applicable to the fuel suppliers, the grocery chains, the tree-clearing companies, the roofers, the home-supply stores, the trucking industry, is unusually visible in an emergency like this (although even there, as the media interactions with Mayor White suggest, such visibility requires a conceptual approach, not staring blankly at brute facts without integration). What most people don’t realize is that this is the achievement industry engages in each and every day. This entire complex causal chain is something that is enacted on a daily basis and keeps the food on our tables, the water flowing from the tap, and the cars moving. And it is enacted on a daily basis in every other industry, such as communications,
construction, entertainment and finance, to the extent that these industries are left free to operate without government controls.

Were these the lessons grasped by the intellectuals and media spokesmen? Initially, it was difficult to know what the rest of the country was saying about Houston because we were under a storm-imposed blackout in which only the three local stations were broadcasting. However, even comparing these three stations and their broadcasts shows important differences in interpretation and philosophical perspective.

By far the best station is KHOU channel 11. This station repeatedly emphasized the issues of production and the causal sequence, admiringly broadcasting stories about the complex organizational chain to bring necessities to Houstonians, and the men and women who were engaged in this process. The other two stations were starkly different. At the bottom of the list is KTRK channel 13, which broadcast stories in “investigative reporter” mode, attempting to uncover conspiracies in what government and others were doing that caused them to not get Houston on its feet fast enough according to the station’s timetable. Its main investigative reporter, Wayne Dolcefino, asked “what don’t they want us to know” when officials understandably blocked reporters (along with everyone else) from going to the Bolivar Peninsula, a hard-hit area of Galveston Island that needed to be kept clear while search and rescue crews combed the area for survivors.

In the middle of the heap but not particularly higher than channel 13 was KPRC channel 2, which didn’t stoop as low as channel 13 but spent a good bit of its air coverage emphasizing a few glitches (which did exist) in the setting up of the PODs, calling them “huge disconnects.” Neither of these other two stations came close to the level of understanding of the production chain as did channel 11.

At the national level, the interpretations could be seen once the blackout was lifted by the return of power and internet connectivity. At first it was a shock to see that Houston was not at the very top of every national report, in fact it had a very small place. We had been immersed in the emergency so fully for so many days that it took a little reorientation to realize that it isn’t the only thing going on in the world. In fact, this is perfectly appropriate approach to reporting.

Emergencies aren’t the essence of life. They are temporary life-threatening situations that at worst threaten a small segment of any country’s population. After the initial shock, it was refreshing to read about what was going on in sports, financial markets, the election and foreign affairs (not that the news in any of these areas was particularly good, with the possible exception of sports, depending on which teams you support). The reports, from the New York Times, Reuters, and others, were factual and sometimes alluded to the points identified above, in a limited way. On the other hand, after the first few days when the emergency was acute, the national media coverage faded to an almost insignificant amount considering that the fourth largest city in the country was still struggling to get back on its feet. The normal recovery of a city of rational individuals and industrial workers, laboring to restore their lives, loses its luster to those in the media who want the drama of chanting crowds, with scenes of homeless people asleep on cots in large stadiums.

One cannot but speculate that at least part of the reason the national media coverage is so limited and matter of fact (especially compared to their unending, monotonous coverage of the New Orleans Katrina aftermath) is that Houston is just not helpless enough for their world view. Certainly, the plentiful material for philosophical implications was barely reported in the national media. Nor were any such implications drawn. An emergency, which highlighted the fundamental issues in human survival, and which afforded a richly outfitted laboratory for philosophical insight, became just another 2nd page story, and hence a missed opportunity.~

Flooded with Money

Government intervention in the economy invariably leads to unintended consequences. Many times such interventions force individuals to act contrary to their own judgment, and they invariably seek ways around the intervention. At other times, such interventions encourage behavior that ultimately creates results not foreseen.The National Flood Insurance Program (NFIP) is one such intervention.

From the NFIP web site:

Before 1968, the federal government’s flood initiatives consisted of disaster relief to victims in the event of a flood, or flood control projects such as dams, levees and seawalls.

While well-intentioned, this approach did little to ease the financial burden of most flood victims. Worse, the public couldn’t buy flood coverage from most insurance companies, which regarded floods as too costly to insure.

Congress established the National Flood Insurance Program (NFIP) to address both the need for flood insurance and the need to lessen the devastating consequences of flooding. The goals of the program are twofold: to protect communities from potential flood damage through floodplain management, and to provide people with flood insurance.

What this means is that private insurers regard flood insurance as too risky, i.e., a bad investment. The lack of available flood insurance provided a disincentive to build in flood prone areas.

However, with NFIP that disincentive was removed. With taxpayer subsidized insurance available, it became less risky to build in flood plains. And with the risk removed, development boomed.

In other words, taxpayers are forced to support a program that encourages building in flood plains. And to make matters worse, taxpayers are then forced to pay for rebuilding and recovery efforts through FEMA and similar programs.

This is a classic example of the government intervening and providing a service below its market value. As always happens in such situations, demand increased. And that demand resulted in more beach front properties and the resulting expenses when devastating storms strike.

The solution is not more interventions. The solution is not prohibitions on building on beaches or other infringements of property rights. The solution is to get the government out of the insurance business.

If individuals wish to build on their beach property, they have a moral right to do so. They do not have a moral right to force others to subsidize their insurance or rebuild their home. If they can obtain insurance, or self-insure, the financial risk is entirely theirs (or their insurer's).

The reasonableness of building on the beach is open to debate. But that is a decision that should be left to the property owner based on his judgment. However, when the government provides subsidized insurance, the property owner is no longer required to act with the same level of responsibility. Taxpayers across the nation will shoulder a little of his responsibility, and thus encourage behavior than he might otherwise shun.

The government flooded the insurance market with taxpayer money and as a result a lot more homes get flooded.

Selective Enforcement

Buckhead Investments, the developers of the Ashby High Rise, have applied for a variance from the city in regard to the loading dock for the proposed project. A story in the West University Examiner News states:

The controversial development at 1717 Bissonnet St. has cleared six of seven departmental reviews, but still lacks clearance from Public Works and Engineering’s traffic section, which last rejected plans June 24.

In the comments section of the most recent denial, Public Works representatives asked for supporting documentation concerning “peak-hour turning movements” and suggested a pull-through loading area, rather than having trucks back onto Bissonnet.

The developers have cited another project not far from their location that uses a configuration similar to theirs. According to the developers, the Fairmont Museum District at 4310 Dunlavy St. does not have a pull-through loading dock.


Whether this is true or not is really an irrelevant issue. The City of Houston has made it clear that it will do everything it can to stop the Ashby High Rise.

The city recently said it will rely heavily on guidelines from an ordinance concerning the connection of driveways into public streets as the method of controlling traffic congestion, rather than continuing work on an ordinance to limit the size of high-density developments.

Those guidelines date back to 1947, and — according to city records — have never been cited in either approving or denying any building permit.

In other words, the city is going to rely on a 61-year-old law that has apparently never been enforced. Why are they starting now?

But a more fundamental issue is the fact that such a law even exists. What purpose is served by having a law that has never been enforced? Apparently the issues addressed by the law have never arisen, in which case we must question why the law was written. That City Hall has chosen to selectively enforce it now, when its attempts to draft new legislation specifically aimed at Buckhead failed, raises some serious questions about motives.

This is the very nature of non-objective laws-- they are subject to a wide variety of interpretations, and those interpretations ultimately determine their application. Combine that with political pressure from constituents and you get the type of selective enforcement we are witnessing in regard to the Ashby High Rise.

The treatment of Buckhead Investments should be insulting to anyone who values the rule of law. City Hall is blatantly and openly resorting to strong arm tactics to kill the project. If Houstonians allow such an atrocity to continue, the ultimate devastation will be much worse than that wrought by Hurricane Ike. Ike destroyed our property; granting such powers to City Hall will destroy our property rights.

Texas Open Beaches Act, Part 2

Sunday's Chronicle addresses the Texas Open Beaches Act and its possible application to areas devastated by Hurricane Ike. The debate has already begun as to what will and will not be allowed, though it may be a year before a final decision is made.

In the Chronicle article, Jim Blackburn, an environmental attorney and coastal expert based in Houston is quoted:

"We have to protect people from themselves and certainly from developers."

According to Mr. Blackburn, development should be restricted or prohibited because people might make bad decisions. The same could be said about consuming alcohol, eating red meat, driving, using the Internet, or come to think of it, any human activity. If protecting people from themselves is justification for prohibiting them from building on their property, then there is no limit as to which activities could be regulated.

Freedom means the right to act without coercion, so long as you respect the mutual rights of others. Freedom means the right to make bad, or even stupid, decisions.

Some argue that such restrictions are justified because these bad decisions impact others. But this is also true of virtually every decision we make. Again, those who posit such an argument are endorsing unrestricted government regulation of individual activities.

Jerry Patterson, the state's land commissioner

said his intent is not to trample on property rights, but to confront what he considers a crucial problem. In addition to the eroding shoreline, he is concerned that the high cost of rebuilding highways and pipelines and restoring beaches on barrier lands will become a perpetual burden on state taxpayers.

This entire issue would go away if the government got out of the infrastructure business. Simply privatize the land and the entire issue goes away. Those who own the land should pay for the infrastructure needed to support those areas.

This is the type of problem that arises when government acts beyond its legitimate functions. Each illegitimate action creates unforeseen problems, which lead to the need for further interventions.

The real issue is not whether anyone should build in areas impacted by hurricanes. The issue is the legitimate function of government. Government's proper function is the protection of individual rights, including property rights.

A right is a sanction to act without restriction. A right sanctions you to act according to your judgment, so long as you respect the mutual rights of others to act according to their judgment. You cannot force others to act in accordance with your judgment, just as they cannot force you to act in accordance with theirs. Government's sole function is the protection of this right.

When government moves beyond this function, it invariably imposes the judgments of some upon others. Such actions require some individuals to act contrary to their judgment, or as Mr. Blackburn puts it, "to protect people from themselves". Not only is this arrogant, it is immoral.

Mr. Blackburn, and others who support the Texas Open Beaches Act may not like the decisions many people make. He has every right to disagree, but he has no right to impose his views on others. That is the meaning of freedom.

Hoarding and Gouging

In the first two days after Hurricane Ike hit the Houston area, I could not find a store open within 3 miles of my home. It wasn't that I was in need of anything, but I wanted to know what was available. On Monday a few stores opened, all of which I believe were powered by generators. The first gas was not available until Tuesday.

During this period government officials were regularly warning businesses to refrain from gouging customers. When stores opened or gas was available, long lines quickly formed. I heard reports of people waiting up to 4 hours for gas.

Much of the demand for gas was created by people topping off their tank. Under normal circumstances, I doubt that many people do this. They know that they can purchase gas easily and do not care to spend the time and effort to put a few gallons in their tank. However, after Ike individuals wanted to be certain that they had as much gas as they could get. In other words, they were hoarding gas.

This hoarding was not limited to fuel. Brian Shelley at Freedom is the Solution relates an experience he witnessed in a grocery store:

As I picked up a few items at a recently opened store near my home, I witnessed food hoarding going on as well. A woman added nearly a dozen packages of hot dogs to her cart already half-full with bags of frozen chicken breasts, and other packaged meats. She then turned to advise the other two women she was with to grab some. Each added half a dozen packages to their carts. I don’t know their situation back home, but since the shelves were mostly bare already, it probably meant that other people arriving later would have to go without. If the store had hiked the prices of certain items even a few dollars, food types in short supply could have been enjoyed by more people not just the lucky few who discovered that the store had recently restocked.

In the aftermath of Ike, demand for many items spiked. Many people lost food when their electricity went out and they were seeking to restock. Those with generators needed additional gas. Those who had neither electricity or a generator needed ice. All of these items were in short supply. Because those who had these items had been warned about gouging, they could not raise their prices to curb demand.

All resources exist in a limited supply, even under normal conditions. There is never enough of any product or service. Prices moderate demand and ration products and services to those who most value them. When demand spikes, but prices do not rise, consumers will hoard.

Economically, anti-gouging laws make no sense. Morally, they are unjustifiable. Every economic transaction is a voluntary exchange. Each party benefits, or else he will not take part in the transaction. If he finds the price too high for the value he will receive, he can simply decline the transaction.

This was true the day before Ike hit, and it remains true in the days after. No matter what the product, those who own it have a moral right to establish the price for which they will sell it, even if that price seems outrageous. So long as the business does not force anyone to buy its products, and I have heard no reports of this ever happening, the consumer is free to look elsewhere.

In normal times, most consumers recognize their freedom of choice. They recognize that they have the right to take their business to someone else. But in emergencies many believe that it is proper and just to compel businesses to act as if an emergency did not exist.

The right to property means the right of use and disposal. It means that the property owner can determine the conditions and price for which he will sell his property. On the flip side, consumers who highly value a particular product can bid up the price. If a seller can find a willing buyer, and a buyer can find a willing seller, nobody has been harmed.

The rationale behind anti-gouging laws is that businesses will take advantage of consumers during desperate times. This implies that consumers cannot make wise decisions during emergencies. It implies that consumers have a right to purchase food, water, ice, and plywood at a particular price. No such right exists. In this context, there is only the right to choose.

At root, anti-gouging laws infringe on the rights of every individual. Because anti-gouging laws interfere with the voluntary exchange of property they harm both the producer and the consumer.

Imagine the uproar if the government imposed restrictions on the quantity of gas, ice, water, food, plywood, or any other product that could be purchased after a hurricane. The outrage would be justified because it would interfere with the voluntary exchange between two willing parties. The same outrage should be expressed anytime government interferes in a voluntary exchange, whether it is aimed at consumers or businesses.

The Pen is Mightier than the Storm Surge

If you have seen photos of the Texas coast after Hurricane Ike, you are aware of the the destruction caused by the storm. Thousands of homes were seriously damaged or destroyed, and many will be prohibited from rebuilding. And the owners of many of the homes that survived Ike may be prohibited from occupying their property.

The Dallas Morning News reports that the State of Texas may seize hundreds of properties, including homes that survived the storm, under the Texas Open Beaches Act (TOBA):

Hundreds of people whose beachfront homes were wrecked by Hurricane Ike may be barred from rebuilding under a little-noticed Texas law. And even those whose houses were spared could end up seeing them condemned by the state.

Now here's the saltwater in the wound: It could be a year before the state tells these homeowners what they may or may not do.

Worse, if these homeowners do lose their beachfront property, they may get nothing in compensation from the state.

What this means is that what Hurricane Ike could not accomplish will be done with a stroke of the lawmaker's pen. The 1959 law proclaims that the beach between the normal high tide and the normal low tide is public property and it is illegal to build private homes on public property.

The law is typically enforced after a large storm moves the shoreline, but it can also be invoked after gradual erosion does the same thing. Regardless, the owner loses his property and receives no compensation.

The author of the law expressed no sympathy for the victims of this land grab.

"We're talking about damn fools that have built houses on the edge of the sea for as long as man could remember and against every advice anyone has given," A.R. "Babe" Schwartz said.

According to "Babe", since these property owners did something foolish (which is debatable) then the state has every right to seize their property. But who determines what is foolish? And why do foolish actions give the state the right to seize the property? "Babe" offered no explanation. Foolishness is not illegal, nor should it be so.

"Babe" attempts to justify his law:

Every one of them was warned of that in their earnest money contract, in the deed they received, in the title policy they bought," he said. "And whether you like it or not, neither the Constitution of the United States nor the state of Texas nor any law permits you to have a structure on state-owned property that's subject to the flow of the tide.

That may be true, but it does not justify condemning private property and seizing it for the state. More significantly, "Babe" uses the law to justify itself-- private structures cannot be built on public land, and since the beach is public land, the law is proper. This is nothing more than a circular argument.

The proper purpose of government is the protection of individual rights, including property rights. As a part of that function, government must define how property rights are established-- as it properly did in the Homesteading Act. TOBA defines property rights out of existence.

The premise behind TOBA is that the public has a right to beach access. To secure this "right" a certain portion of the beach was declared public property and accessible to all.

The web site for Texas Open Beach Advocates defends the law because it protects a "basic and traditional right to some of the best of God's creation". No explanation is offered as to the source of this "right". Apparently we are supposed to just know.

The truth is, there is no such right. A right pertains to action. A right is the freedom to take action in the pursuit of one's values. A right is not a guarantee that one's actions will be successful, or that one will attain the object of one's desires. The mutual rights of others prohibits us from pursuing or attaining our values through the use of force.

The TOBA crowd believes that their desires constitute a right. They believe that if they desire something-- such as open beaches-- then others must provide that something. And all they need is some politician eager to win votes to accomplish their goal. All they need is someone willing to use a pen to accomplish what the storm surge couldn't.

Ike and Property Rights

Prior to Ike's landfall, everyone in the region was bombarded with tips and information on how to prepare for a hurricane. Since Houstonians often go through such a routine multiple times a year, the information is widely known (or should be). Among the suggestions: have 3 days of water and non-perishable food, have candles and batteries, fill your bathtub, and fill your gas tank. None of these are particularly difficult or expensive tasks.

In the aftermath of the storm, it became painfully obvious that the advice and information provided by authorities was ignored by many citizens. On Sunday citizens (and some local government officials) were complaining about the lack of food, water, and ice. In short, less than 24 hours after the storm, many citizens were already out of food and water. Clearly, they did not heed the advice to stock a 3 day supply.

While it was apparently too much of an imposition to fill up a few jugs of water and buy a few cans of tuna, these people had plenty of energy to hunt down the nearest reporter and air their complaints. They had no interest in taking the responsibility to provide for their own sustenance, but quickly damned the "system" when those items did not miraculously appear.

These people demonstrated little regard for their own lives. They could not, or would not, take simple steps to provide for themselves. They chose to wantonly and irresponsibly ignore both the advice of authorities and common sense. Instead, they chose to demand that others provide for them.

Unfortunately, there are many who ignore the self-imposed nature of this misery, and rush to provide aid and comfort. There are many who regard need as a claim on the property of others, and demand that tax dollars be used to provide for those who refused to provide for themselves.
The victims of Ike are not limited to the path of his winds and rain. The victims of Ike are spread across the nation as taxpayers from every state are forced to provide relief for the area.

Houstonians did not choose to be ravaged by a hurricane. But neither did the residents of Iowa, or Georgia, or Alaska, or any other state. Yet their property will be taken for the benefit of those in the Houston area. Our need is not a claim on their property.

In the days since Ike’s landfall there have been countless stories of private individuals and businesses donating water, ice, and other supplies to help others. There are undoubtedly many more such stories that will never be heard. This is the proper response to any disaster—relief provided through the voluntary actions of individuals and businesses.

Each individual has a moral right to pursue the actions required for his sustenance and enjoyment, so long as he respects the mutual rights of others. An individual’s need, no matter how dire or how tragic its cause, does not give him a right to demand that others provide for him. Those who claim otherwise are declaring that has no individual has a right to live for himself, that the individual can be forced to sacrifice for others.

Houston has become a great city because it has largely rejected that premise. Houston has largely respected the property rights of its citizens. If Houstonians wish to retain our greatness, we must continue to respect property rights, including those of non-Houstonians.