After my talk to the Houston Property Rights Association, I answered questions for about an hour. (The text of that talk was posted yesterday.) Below are some of the more interesting questions/ comments along with my answers. Both the questions and my answers are from memory and are paraphrased.
Q. I don’t see it as a moral issue. Free markets provide more benefits to the masses.
A. Freedom is a moral requirement for human life. Morality provides us with the principles to think and act—it tells us what actions are proper for human beings. If you lived on a deserted island, you would have to take action in order to survive. You would have to pick berries, fish, build a shelter, etc. But you wouldn’t automatically know how to do these things. You would have to look at reality and understand it before you could transform it to provide you with the values you need to survive. You would have to think rationally or die. This doesn’t change when you enter society—you must still produce. You don’t have to grow your food or build your home. You can create other values to trade. But you still must produce or die. Or live as a parasite. However, in society others can impede your ability to think and act. Others can use force to prevent you from taking the actions needed to sustain and enjoy your life. Morality tells us that we must think and act rationally; morality tells us that we must be free in order to do so.
Q. If we had a society such as you describe, and a small percentage of people accumulated all of the wealth and everyone else lived in abject poverty, would you abandon your moral principles?
A. No, I am not a hypocrite. The number of people who benefit from an idea does not determine its truth. In addition, throughout the history of mankind, there has never been a single example of this happening when individuals are relatively free. Free individuals create wealth, and some create more than others. Even if one person accumulated all of the wealth, nobody would have a moral right to take his property by force.
Q. What do you think of deed restrictions? They force people to give up their property rights.
A. Deed restrictions are voluntary and contractual. No force is involved. If you don’t like the terms of the contract, don’t sign it. There are valid reasons to agree to limit the use of your property—you don’t want to live in a neighborhood with billboards, muffler shops, and convenience stores nearby. But there is a huge difference between deed restrictions and land use regulations.
Q. Most deed restrictions required a vote of 75% of the property owners to make any changes. But the Texas Legislature changed that to 51%. So there is government coercion involved.
A. Yes, but not in regard to the deed restrictions themselves. The coercion comes from the fact that the government unilaterally changed the terms of a valid contract. The parties to that contract did not agree to the change—why else would the government be involved? What the government did is wrong. The only role the government should have in regard to a contract is to determine if it has been breached, who breached it, and what damages should be awarded. But the government should not be changing the terms of a contract.
Q. Should the government get involved when a property owner allows his property to get run down?
A. That would depend on the specific circumstances. If the property is causing an objective threat to others, then yes. For example, if a house is falling over and threatening to crash into the neighbor’s house, I would say that this is a legitimate and objective threat. But there would need to be clear criteria as to what would constitute an objective threat. In many neighborhoods the house would never get to that point of disrepair because deed restrictions would govern some level of maintenance.
Q. What if I want to keep a room full of dynamite? Should the government be able to ban that?
A. Yes. There is no valid reason to have a room full of dynamite. Dynamite can be very destructive and does pose a threat to your neighbors. Property rights do not mean that we can do anything we want. We can’t use our property to violate the rights of others, or threaten to do so.
There was then a great deal of conversation on this topic before the meeting was adjourned. What follows are some additional thoughts on the subject.
A right is a sanction to freedom of action in a social setting. Our rights place boundaries on others—they may not interfere with our actions. Their rights place boundaries on us—we may not interfere with their actions. Only physical force can prevent or compel an individual to act in a specific way. Only force can make him act contrary to his own judgment.
If we sent noxious smoke over a fence, we have exposed our neighbor to harmful materials without his consent. We have forced him to act contrary to his own judgment. Now, if for some reason he allows us to send such smoke into his yard, we have not violated his rights—he has voluntarily agreed.
The same holds true of a room full of dynamite. If we pack a room with enough explosives to damage the property of others—and we do so without their knowledge and consent—we are placing their lives and property at risk without their agreement. We have imposed an objective threat against them without their voluntary consent. If we are able to secure the permission of everyone who might be impacted—that is, those whose lives and property are threatened—we would not be violating their rights.
An analogy to the dynamite situation is a guard dog. So long as the dog is restrained he poses a threat only to those who voluntarily come near him. But if the dog is allowed to roam freely, he becomes a threat to anyone who is nearby, whether they consent or not.
Showing posts with label deed restrictions. Show all posts
Showing posts with label deed restrictions. Show all posts
Wednesday, January 21, 2009
Thursday, January 15, 2009
If I Can't Park in My Yard, Can I Park in Yours?
Houston City Council is considering a new ordinance that would allow neighborhoods to ban parking on the lawn. (HT: Gus Van Horn) According to the Chronicle:
I can empathize with Ms. Frye, though I'm not quite sure what's wrong with cars sitting in the driveway. I don't want to live next to someone who has ruts in his yard, or doesn't prune his hibiscus, or doesn't clean his gutters. Nor do I want to live next to someone who thinks she can pass laws to dictate what I do on my property. I don't want to live next door to someone with "trashy" ideas. In other words, I don't want to live next to Ms. Frye.
While the ordinance has gained considerable support from neighborhood activists, it does have some detractors.
Mr. Birney lacks the courage to confront his neighbors, and would prefer to use the heavy hand of government to do the dirty work. And he's not content to impose his values on just his neighborhood, he wants to impose them on the entire city. Then he can claim innocence and blame others for acting as his proxy.
Former Councilmember Rod Todd also thinks the ban should be citywide:
I agree that this ordinance could create a lot of animosity in some neighborhoods. Some people do not appreciate having their property rights violated. Some people actually get upset when others try to dictate their actions. Some people take such things very personally, and would not be very kind to neighbors who want to create a mini-fiefdom. If Mr. Todd is truly concerned about such neighborhood battles, perhaps he should reconsider his premises.
The proposed ordinance, as it currently stands, would require neighborhood activists to engage in hand-to-hand combat, so to speak. Their neighbors would be able to identify the busybodies, and this could certainly be uncomfortable to the meddlers. To avoid this, they would rather engage in long-range warfare and just drop a bomb on the entire city. It is a lot less messy, at least personally, that way. They don't have to demonstrate the strength of their convictions; they can hide behind the skirt of Councilmembers.
There are several non-coercive methods for dealing with this. One is to move. If you do not like a particular neighborhood, move to another one. Nobody is holding a gun to your head to live in one particular neighborhood. These meddlers however, certainly want the city to hold a gun to their neighbor's head. If you think this is hyperbole, try violating the ordinance-- someone with a gun will eventually be at your door. Another method is deed restrictions. These voluntary, contractual agreements are used throughout Houston to address issues like this.
Instead of trying reason, these busybodies automatically resort to force. Instead of persuasion, they just march down to City Hall and demand a new law. If they don't like something, they try to get it banned. And they believe that if they can gather enough like-minded people then they are justified in dictating to their neighbors. They believe that might makes right, and they have the opinion of the majority of their neighbors to prove it.
City Attorney Arturo Michel inadvertently gets to the heart of the matter:
It will indeed be a nifty little trick if he can find such a balance, because one does not exist. There is no such entity as a neighborhood--a neighborhood consists of the individuals who comprise it. A neighborhood per se has no rights-- only individuals have rights, and those rights apply to all individuals equally.
A right is a sanction to act without interference from others. A right places boundaries on others--they may not interfere with your actions, just as you may not interfere with their actions. Collective "rights" destroy individual rights by granting to the group a sanction that no individual has--the "right" to initiate force against others.
The righteous arrogance of these neighborhood activists would be comical if the principles involved weren't so serious. Fueled with a large dose of altruism, they callously berate their neighbors for having different values. They want to live in a neighborhood where everyone marches to their orders. As much as I dislike broken-down cars in driveways and parking in the lawn, I would much rather have that in my neighborhood than a mob that thinks it can dictate how I should live my life.
The proposed law would allow civic associations to apply for the prohibition, or for 60 percent of residents to apply by petition. City officials developed this “opt-in” process after efforts to enact a citywide ban failed in 2007.
“I don’t want a trashy house with cars sitting in the driveway, with ruts and oil spilling out on the grass,” said Phyllis Randolph Frye, a lawyer and civil engineer who is active in her Westbury neighborhood. “I know I don’t want to live next to that.”
I can empathize with Ms. Frye, though I'm not quite sure what's wrong with cars sitting in the driveway. I don't want to live next to someone who has ruts in his yard, or doesn't prune his hibiscus, or doesn't clean his gutters. Nor do I want to live next to someone who thinks she can pass laws to dictate what I do on my property. I don't want to live next door to someone with "trashy" ideas. In other words, I don't want to live next to Ms. Frye.
While the ordinance has gained considerable support from neighborhood activists, it does have some detractors.
Jim Birney, who lives in the Craig Woods subdivision of Spring Branch, said he liked the compromise ordinance but would have preferred a citywide ban.
“Our subdivision is very small, only 78 homes, and everybody knows everybody,” Birney said. “When you go apply for it then the neighbor you’re going after knows it’s the civic association that’s going after him.”
Mr. Birney lacks the courage to confront his neighbors, and would prefer to use the heavy hand of government to do the dirty work. And he's not content to impose his values on just his neighborhood, he wants to impose them on the entire city. Then he can claim innocence and blame others for acting as his proxy.
Former Councilmember Rod Todd also thinks the ban should be citywide:
When you, basically, don’t apply the ordinance formally across the city, it’s going to have the tendency to pit neighbor against neighbor.
I agree that this ordinance could create a lot of animosity in some neighborhoods. Some people do not appreciate having their property rights violated. Some people actually get upset when others try to dictate their actions. Some people take such things very personally, and would not be very kind to neighbors who want to create a mini-fiefdom. If Mr. Todd is truly concerned about such neighborhood battles, perhaps he should reconsider his premises.
The proposed ordinance, as it currently stands, would require neighborhood activists to engage in hand-to-hand combat, so to speak. Their neighbors would be able to identify the busybodies, and this could certainly be uncomfortable to the meddlers. To avoid this, they would rather engage in long-range warfare and just drop a bomb on the entire city. It is a lot less messy, at least personally, that way. They don't have to demonstrate the strength of their convictions; they can hide behind the skirt of Councilmembers.
There are several non-coercive methods for dealing with this. One is to move. If you do not like a particular neighborhood, move to another one. Nobody is holding a gun to your head to live in one particular neighborhood. These meddlers however, certainly want the city to hold a gun to their neighbor's head. If you think this is hyperbole, try violating the ordinance-- someone with a gun will eventually be at your door. Another method is deed restrictions. These voluntary, contractual agreements are used throughout Houston to address issues like this.
Instead of trying reason, these busybodies automatically resort to force. Instead of persuasion, they just march down to City Hall and demand a new law. If they don't like something, they try to get it banned. And they believe that if they can gather enough like-minded people then they are justified in dictating to their neighbors. They believe that might makes right, and they have the opinion of the majority of their neighbors to prove it.
City Attorney Arturo Michel inadvertently gets to the heart of the matter:
The trick is to find a balance between the person’s rights to their property and the rights of the neighborhood.
It will indeed be a nifty little trick if he can find such a balance, because one does not exist. There is no such entity as a neighborhood--a neighborhood consists of the individuals who comprise it. A neighborhood per se has no rights-- only individuals have rights, and those rights apply to all individuals equally.
A right is a sanction to act without interference from others. A right places boundaries on others--they may not interfere with your actions, just as you may not interfere with their actions. Collective "rights" destroy individual rights by granting to the group a sanction that no individual has--the "right" to initiate force against others.
The righteous arrogance of these neighborhood activists would be comical if the principles involved weren't so serious. Fueled with a large dose of altruism, they callously berate their neighbors for having different values. They want to live in a neighborhood where everyone marches to their orders. As much as I dislike broken-down cars in driveways and parking in the lawn, I would much rather have that in my neighborhood than a mob that thinks it can dictate how I should live my life.
Wednesday, October 15, 2008
Teeing Off on Property Rights
It seems to be increasingly rare to open the newspaper and not find a story regarding home owners fighting some proposed development. The latest story comes from Clear Lake, where residents are fighting the proposed development of what was formerly the Clear Lake Golf Club (CLGC). However, in this instance I am going to side with the residents, at least in part.
The company that owns the land, Renaissance Golf Group, has made a habit of purchasing older golf courses and selling the land to developers. I have no problem with such a practice. However, in the case of CLGC, Renaissance is seeking to have the deed restrictions governing the land removed. Those deed restrictions mandate that the land will be used as a golf course or a recreational facility until 2021.
Deed restrictions are a contractual agreement, in which the owner voluntarily agrees to limit the use of his property. Such agreements are common in Houston, and are a valid, non-coercive means for property owners to insure that neighboring properties are used in a manner that they find acceptable. In other words, deed restrictions provide stability in land uses. However, unlike government mandated land use regulations, they are voluntary and based on the consent of those entering the agreement.
In the case of CLGC, Renaissance is seeking to invalidate a legitimate contract. It is seeking to overturn restrictions on the use of the property, even though it accepted those restrictions when it purchased CLGC. This is abhorrent and irresponsible. A person (or business) of character honors his agreements. He does not seek to have them declare invalid when he later finds the terms less desirable. Short of fraud, there is no valid reason for overturning the deed restrictions, or any contract for that matter.
What Renaissance is attempting is essentially theft. They entered into an agreement, as did others, and now they wish to renege on their part of the bargain. Imagine that two hours after you returned from the store, the manager showed up and demanded additional payment. After you engaged in the voluntary transaction, he decided that he didn't like the terms and unilaterally chose to change them. That is basically what Renaissance is trying to do.
The story has an ironic twist. The Clear Lake City Water Authority is seeking to condemn the property and purchase it from Renaissance. Renaissance claims that the price offered is too low, and the case is to be heard this week.
Government seizure of private property is as invalid as seeking to overturn a contract. But in a perverse way, there is a certain sense of justice in this story. Renaissance is getting a taste of its own medicine. It sought to use force to overthrow a contract, and now force is proposed against it. Don't mistake my position, both parties are wrong.
As I recently wrote, this would be a non-issue if property rights were understood, respected, and protected. Renaissance would be obligated to honor the deed restrictions, or have them amended according to the provisions contained therein. When property rights are ignored, when might makes right, we witness events such as this.
The company that owns the land, Renaissance Golf Group, has made a habit of purchasing older golf courses and selling the land to developers. I have no problem with such a practice. However, in the case of CLGC, Renaissance is seeking to have the deed restrictions governing the land removed. Those deed restrictions mandate that the land will be used as a golf course or a recreational facility until 2021.
Deed restrictions are a contractual agreement, in which the owner voluntarily agrees to limit the use of his property. Such agreements are common in Houston, and are a valid, non-coercive means for property owners to insure that neighboring properties are used in a manner that they find acceptable. In other words, deed restrictions provide stability in land uses. However, unlike government mandated land use regulations, they are voluntary and based on the consent of those entering the agreement.
In the case of CLGC, Renaissance is seeking to invalidate a legitimate contract. It is seeking to overturn restrictions on the use of the property, even though it accepted those restrictions when it purchased CLGC. This is abhorrent and irresponsible. A person (or business) of character honors his agreements. He does not seek to have them declare invalid when he later finds the terms less desirable. Short of fraud, there is no valid reason for overturning the deed restrictions, or any contract for that matter.
What Renaissance is attempting is essentially theft. They entered into an agreement, as did others, and now they wish to renege on their part of the bargain. Imagine that two hours after you returned from the store, the manager showed up and demanded additional payment. After you engaged in the voluntary transaction, he decided that he didn't like the terms and unilaterally chose to change them. That is basically what Renaissance is trying to do.
The story has an ironic twist. The Clear Lake City Water Authority is seeking to condemn the property and purchase it from Renaissance. Renaissance claims that the price offered is too low, and the case is to be heard this week.
Government seizure of private property is as invalid as seeking to overturn a contract. But in a perverse way, there is a certain sense of justice in this story. Renaissance is getting a taste of its own medicine. It sought to use force to overthrow a contract, and now force is proposed against it. Don't mistake my position, both parties are wrong.
As I recently wrote, this would be a non-issue if property rights were understood, respected, and protected. Renaissance would be obligated to honor the deed restrictions, or have them amended according to the provisions contained therein. When property rights are ignored, when might makes right, we witness events such as this.
Wednesday, July 16, 2008
Whose Plan Should Prevail?
Zoning advocates talk about the need for planning. Houston, they claim, has developed in an arbitrary and unplanned manner. At the same time, they point to master planned communities such as New Territory as evidence that Houstonians want planning.
The contradiction in such claims seems to escape the pro-zoners. More significantly, they seek to substitute public planning for private planning. They seek to substitute coercive planning for voluntary planning.
Planned communities restrict land uses through private, voluntary contracts—i.e., deed restrictions. If the buyer finds the restrictions undesirable, he can simply refuse to purchase the property. His acceptance of the restrictions is his own choice.
Zoning however, is imposed by force. The property owner has no voice in the restrictions placed upon his property. Indeed, zoning actually grants non-owners of the property a greater voice in its use.
In the process, the plans of the property owner are rendered moot. He must sit by helplessly while others determine the use of his property and impose their values and their plans upon him.
Freedom allows us to pursue our values without intervention from others. Individuals have a moral right to plan and to implement that plan. Freedom allows individuals to adjust their plans as their values and/ or conditions change. Freedom is the primary reason that Houston has not suffered the same economic problems as more restrictive cities.
Despite the well documented problems associated with zoning and highly regulated communities, zoning advocates would have us believe that their plan is somehow superior. And they seek to impose that plan upon the entire community by force.
© J. Brian Phillips 2008
The contradiction in such claims seems to escape the pro-zoners. More significantly, they seek to substitute public planning for private planning. They seek to substitute coercive planning for voluntary planning.
Planned communities restrict land uses through private, voluntary contracts—i.e., deed restrictions. If the buyer finds the restrictions undesirable, he can simply refuse to purchase the property. His acceptance of the restrictions is his own choice.
Zoning however, is imposed by force. The property owner has no voice in the restrictions placed upon his property. Indeed, zoning actually grants non-owners of the property a greater voice in its use.
In the process, the plans of the property owner are rendered moot. He must sit by helplessly while others determine the use of his property and impose their values and their plans upon him.
Freedom allows us to pursue our values without intervention from others. Individuals have a moral right to plan and to implement that plan. Freedom allows individuals to adjust their plans as their values and/ or conditions change. Freedom is the primary reason that Houston has not suffered the same economic problems as more restrictive cities.
Despite the well documented problems associated with zoning and highly regulated communities, zoning advocates would have us believe that their plan is somehow superior. And they seek to impose that plan upon the entire community by force.
© J. Brian Phillips 2008
Monday, July 7, 2008
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
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
Saturday, April 26, 2008
The Government versus Freedom, Part 6
This pamphlet was written in the aftermath of the zoning debate that took place in Houston in the early 1990’s. The ideas remain relevant today. References are listed at the end of part 7.
The Freedom to Choose
In contrast to the advocates of zoning, who hold that society may force its values upon individuals, we repudiate the initiation of force in human affairs. We assert that each individual is a sovereign entity, that each individual has a moral right to pursue his values without interference from others. Furthermore, we believe that government should ensure that each individual may peacefully pursue his values, no matter how unpopular they might be. The proper purpose of government is the protection of this right.
In a free-market, innovators and entrepreneurs have the freedom to offer new ideas and new products. And each individual has the freedom to choose which ideas and products he will support. So long as he recognizes and respects the mutual rights of others, each individual is permitted to pursue his values without interference.
Henry Ford, for example, was chastised for his horseless carriage. The free-market permitted Henry Ford to offer an unpopular product for sale. The free-market permitted individuals to voluntarily purchase that product. The free-market permits individuals to make choices for themselves, and prohibits them from forcing those choices onto others. The essence of the free-market is freedom of choice.
This is as true of land use as any other value. The free-market allows property owners to pursue their values in a voluntary, cooperative manner, yet also provides a means to ensure predictability in property use. That means is deed restrictions.
Deed restrictions are contractual agreements made between property owners restricting land to a particular use. Deed restrictions can restrict a piece of property to virtually any use: residential (multi- or single-family), retail, industrial, etc. Deed restrictions can also govern such features as the presence and dimensions of trees, fencing heights, or the color of a home. In most communities, an association made up of homeowners enforces the deed restrictions.
Many people see little difference between zoning and deed restrictions, between zoning officials and a homeowners' association. They do not understand that zoning is political and mandatory, while deed restrictions are contractual and based on free choice.
The homeowners in deed restricted communities a) have chosen where they will live based (partly) on whether the deed restrictions are acceptable to them; b) have been given the opportunity to read and consider the contractual restrictions they and their neighbors agree to; and c) may leave those communities (or exercise legal remedies) if the specific and very limited authority given the homeowners' association is abused. Because deed restrictions vary across the city (and are non-existent in some areas), consumers are provided with an unlimited array of choices regarding the use of their land.
In contrast, the homeowners in a zoned municipality have no power to choose the conditions under which they will live, and have nowhere else to move if those conditions are unacceptable. In short, the difference between deed restrictions and zoning is the difference between voluntary choice and coercive imposition, between the private agreements of individuals and the dictates of public tribunals.
The advocates of zoning point to areas where land use has changed, and claim that this proves the ineffectiveness of deed restrictions. This claim is false, for deed restrictions allow homeowners to choose to change the land use if they desire (voting requirements vary). In some cases, property owners in a subdivision have exercised their right to change the land use. In other cases, deed restrictions were written poorly, so that it was too easy to change the land use. Homeowners who thought they contracted for a certain guarantee of protection discovered they were in error. However, the remedy here is to write more precise legal language into the deed restrictions. One of the requirements of responsible home purchasing is to ensure-- through legal advice if necessary-- that one's values are being upheld by the contracts one signs.
Another objection raised against deed restrictions is that they are costly to enforce. Occasionally, a homeowner will fight enforcement of deed restrictions by suing the homeowners' association. This is not an argument against deed restrictions per se, but an illustration of how frivolous lawsuits can undermine the enforcement of any contract. Such obstructive lawsuits are relatively rare in deed restriction enforcement. Proper responsibility to stop such attempts must continue to reside with the judiciary, which by and large acts on the principle that mere enforcement of a contract (with no auxiliary circumstances) cannot by itself constitute grounds for a civil suit.
To make this point clearer, consider the same argument from the context of a home mortgage, i.e., a contractual agreement between a borrower and a lender. If a lawsuit challenging the initial contract were filed, no one would claim that the cost of litigation invalidates all mortgages. Instead, we would focus on the faulty legal mechanisms which permit unscrupulous individuals to break long-term contracts.
What about those people who settle in communities without deed restrictions? That is their right and their choice. Those who did so mistakenly, and don't like the way their community has evolved, are free to learn from their errors and make a better choice in the future. Many people in Houston, it should be noted, choose to live in non-restricted communities because property values are lower, and hence houses are more affordable. They don't mind that a convenience store is near their house, because if it weren't they wouldn't have a house. This is an example of how the free market provides a wide variety of land uses, meeting the individual needs of everyone.
Master-planned communities, like The Woodlands or First Colony, are generally larger than the small subdivisions, and more restrictive in land use. They are also more comprehensive: The developer plans shopping areas, schools, streets, etc., usually along a common pattern or theme. Some people value this unity of design enough to pay the higher prices for land and community fees that exist in master-planned communities.
The advocates of zoning have told us that the popularity of master-planned communities attests to the fact that Houstonians want "planning", which they say means zoning. 27 Again, we find that the zoning advocates are equating private choice with political coercion. Some Houstonians do want planning, and they have found a voluntary way to achieve it. We regard it as disingenuous on the part of zoning advocates to twist a practical free-market alternative into an argument for political intervention.
The advocates of zoning seek to posit themselves as the agents of the public, declaring that they will lead us to economic growth and a better "quality of life." But the truth is, developers-- who must meet the freely chosen demands of the marketplace-- are the true agents of the public. Throughout Houston's history such developers have fueled and kept pace with unparalleled economic growth, and improved the quality of life immeasurably.
© J. Brian Phillips and Warren S. Ross 2008
The Freedom to Choose
In contrast to the advocates of zoning, who hold that society may force its values upon individuals, we repudiate the initiation of force in human affairs. We assert that each individual is a sovereign entity, that each individual has a moral right to pursue his values without interference from others. Furthermore, we believe that government should ensure that each individual may peacefully pursue his values, no matter how unpopular they might be. The proper purpose of government is the protection of this right.
In a free-market, innovators and entrepreneurs have the freedom to offer new ideas and new products. And each individual has the freedom to choose which ideas and products he will support. So long as he recognizes and respects the mutual rights of others, each individual is permitted to pursue his values without interference.
Henry Ford, for example, was chastised for his horseless carriage. The free-market permitted Henry Ford to offer an unpopular product for sale. The free-market permitted individuals to voluntarily purchase that product. The free-market permits individuals to make choices for themselves, and prohibits them from forcing those choices onto others. The essence of the free-market is freedom of choice.
This is as true of land use as any other value. The free-market allows property owners to pursue their values in a voluntary, cooperative manner, yet also provides a means to ensure predictability in property use. That means is deed restrictions.
Deed restrictions are contractual agreements made between property owners restricting land to a particular use. Deed restrictions can restrict a piece of property to virtually any use: residential (multi- or single-family), retail, industrial, etc. Deed restrictions can also govern such features as the presence and dimensions of trees, fencing heights, or the color of a home. In most communities, an association made up of homeowners enforces the deed restrictions.
Many people see little difference between zoning and deed restrictions, between zoning officials and a homeowners' association. They do not understand that zoning is political and mandatory, while deed restrictions are contractual and based on free choice.
The homeowners in deed restricted communities a) have chosen where they will live based (partly) on whether the deed restrictions are acceptable to them; b) have been given the opportunity to read and consider the contractual restrictions they and their neighbors agree to; and c) may leave those communities (or exercise legal remedies) if the specific and very limited authority given the homeowners' association is abused. Because deed restrictions vary across the city (and are non-existent in some areas), consumers are provided with an unlimited array of choices regarding the use of their land.
In contrast, the homeowners in a zoned municipality have no power to choose the conditions under which they will live, and have nowhere else to move if those conditions are unacceptable. In short, the difference between deed restrictions and zoning is the difference between voluntary choice and coercive imposition, between the private agreements of individuals and the dictates of public tribunals.
The advocates of zoning point to areas where land use has changed, and claim that this proves the ineffectiveness of deed restrictions. This claim is false, for deed restrictions allow homeowners to choose to change the land use if they desire (voting requirements vary). In some cases, property owners in a subdivision have exercised their right to change the land use. In other cases, deed restrictions were written poorly, so that it was too easy to change the land use. Homeowners who thought they contracted for a certain guarantee of protection discovered they were in error. However, the remedy here is to write more precise legal language into the deed restrictions. One of the requirements of responsible home purchasing is to ensure-- through legal advice if necessary-- that one's values are being upheld by the contracts one signs.
Another objection raised against deed restrictions is that they are costly to enforce. Occasionally, a homeowner will fight enforcement of deed restrictions by suing the homeowners' association. This is not an argument against deed restrictions per se, but an illustration of how frivolous lawsuits can undermine the enforcement of any contract. Such obstructive lawsuits are relatively rare in deed restriction enforcement. Proper responsibility to stop such attempts must continue to reside with the judiciary, which by and large acts on the principle that mere enforcement of a contract (with no auxiliary circumstances) cannot by itself constitute grounds for a civil suit.
To make this point clearer, consider the same argument from the context of a home mortgage, i.e., a contractual agreement between a borrower and a lender. If a lawsuit challenging the initial contract were filed, no one would claim that the cost of litigation invalidates all mortgages. Instead, we would focus on the faulty legal mechanisms which permit unscrupulous individuals to break long-term contracts.
What about those people who settle in communities without deed restrictions? That is their right and their choice. Those who did so mistakenly, and don't like the way their community has evolved, are free to learn from their errors and make a better choice in the future. Many people in Houston, it should be noted, choose to live in non-restricted communities because property values are lower, and hence houses are more affordable. They don't mind that a convenience store is near their house, because if it weren't they wouldn't have a house. This is an example of how the free market provides a wide variety of land uses, meeting the individual needs of everyone.
Master-planned communities, like The Woodlands or First Colony, are generally larger than the small subdivisions, and more restrictive in land use. They are also more comprehensive: The developer plans shopping areas, schools, streets, etc., usually along a common pattern or theme. Some people value this unity of design enough to pay the higher prices for land and community fees that exist in master-planned communities.
The advocates of zoning have told us that the popularity of master-planned communities attests to the fact that Houstonians want "planning", which they say means zoning. 27 Again, we find that the zoning advocates are equating private choice with political coercion. Some Houstonians do want planning, and they have found a voluntary way to achieve it. We regard it as disingenuous on the part of zoning advocates to twist a practical free-market alternative into an argument for political intervention.
The advocates of zoning seek to posit themselves as the agents of the public, declaring that they will lead us to economic growth and a better "quality of life." But the truth is, developers-- who must meet the freely chosen demands of the marketplace-- are the true agents of the public. Throughout Houston's history such developers have fueled and kept pace with unparalleled economic growth, and improved the quality of life immeasurably.
© J. Brian Phillips and Warren S. Ross 2008
Subscribe to:
Comments (Atom)
