Houston's Apartment Owners in Hot Water

Bill White has made apartment inspections a priority during his reign. His successor will have no choice in the matter. The Texas Legislature is set to approve a bill that will, according to the Chronicle:

[M]ake the city mandate minimum habitability standards in buildings with three or more multifamily units — and perform regular inspections to ensure compliance.

The bill only applies to Houston, which implies that multifamily housing in other cities is of no concern to lawmakers. But this is not the real objection to the bill--the proper response to the violation of one's property rights is not a demand that the rights of others also be violated.

The bill’s author, Rep. Dwayne Bohac, R-Houston, said:

This is about protecting tenants in apartments and about protecting surrounding neighborhoods. This is a really, really big step forward for the city of Houston.

I must disagree. Neither the state nor the city has any moral right to dictate habitability standards or conduct inspections of private property. If landlords wish to have apartments that do not offer running water, or sealed windows, or anything else, that is their right. And if tenants desire operational toilets, hot water, and secured stairways, then they can select housing that offers such. A landlord who offers housing that lacks hot water, or secure stairways, or proper lighting has not violated anyone's rights (unless he has promised such things.) Of course, legislators would prefer to absolve individuals from any personal responsibility in such matters.

Bohac decided to push this legislation after the murder of a Houston policeman in a complex in Boha'c district. The murderer had run into the complex in an attempt to evade police after a traffic stop. Apparently, Bohac believes that if the complex were required to have hot water and operational toilets this scumbag would not have shot a police officer.

Andy Icken, a deputy director with the city’s Public Works and Engineering Department supports the bill:

Having a clear, established state law and city ordinance would clearly communicate to all the stakeholders what our expectations are.

What about the expectations of the property owners? What about their rights to use their property as they judge appropriate? Apparently, that is of no concern--to anyone. The Texas Apartment Association (TAA) supports the bill. George Allen, an executive vice president with the association, told the Chronicle:

As an association, we do not in any cases defend property owners that fail to maintain their properties and allow situations that could affect the health of their residents.

I certainly wouldn't expect TAA to support slumlords, but I would expect it to support property rights. Why can't TAA establish standards for its members? That of course, would be private and voluntary, and in this age of expanding government, non-coercive methods for dealing with any issue is the last alternative to be considered.

From an economic perspective, this bill will increase housing costs. At a minimum, the city will need additional tax dollars to enforce the law. And very likely many multifamily communities will be forced to spend money to meet the city's standards. As is often the case, the poor--who are the primary residents of such communities--will be impacted the most. They will have fewer housing options, and those that remain will cost more. Violating property rights always has economic costs, in addition to the loss of freedom.

Having railed against this attack on property rights, I should add that the city does have a legitimate role to play in dealing with some of the targeted apartment complexes. But that role should be clearly defined and limited to objectively demonstrated nuisances.

If for example, a landlord refuses to maintain his property and it becomes a haven for rats, or raw sewage runs off the property, or otherwise threatens the property of nearby land owners, that landlord has violated the rights of others. Then, and only then, does the city have any legitimacy in involving itself.

Mayoral Preview: Gene Locke

Former City Attorney Gene Locke has tossed his hat into the mayoral ring, and not surprisingly, he sounds a lot like Annise Parker and Peter Brown. His web site tells us that:

Gene will ... protect neighborhoods from unwanted development and work to ensure that any new development is in harmony with current residents’ desires.

While Locke offers no details as to how he will accomplish this, the means by which city government accomplishes virtually anything is through force. Locke will use coercion to prohibit and prevent "unwanted development". He, like Parker and Brown, will throw property rights out the window in order to appease current residents of a neighborhood.

Echoing Brown, Locke wants to continue Bill White's green agenda:

Gene will work to maintain and expand city parks and green spaces; protect the environment by reducing pollution, making our buildings more energy efficient through green building programs and encouraging neighborhoods to become involved in an enhanced and expanded recycling effort.

As is typical, there is no mention of the cost of these initiatives. Expanding city parks costs money. Making our buildings more energy efficient costs money--and will be achieved by expanding building codes and similar coercive methods. Who will pay for these things? Locke doesn't tell us, but I suggest you look in the mirror for the answer. And while Locke is dictating the types of homes we can live in, he will also expand our economy.

As part of Gene’s plan to expand job growth and economic development he will work with local school districts and colleges to provide job training opportunities to prepare students for positions in the business community and other private sector jobs as well as important roles as teachers, nurses, fire fighters and police officers.

Why should the mayor be involved in education? His job is to protect our rights, not play school administrator. If he really wants to expand job growth, he should cut taxes and repeal regulations. He should increase individual freedom.

Gene is confident that Houston will continue its role as the energy capital of the nation and become a leader in alternative energy as well. He will work with federal, state and local enterprises to establish incentives to broaden this important new sector of our economy.

This too sounds just like Parker and Brown--vague promises with no concrete details. He is going to establish "incentives" to broaden alternative energy, which really means he is to going to use a carrot and stick approach. First he dangles a carrot to manipulate you to act as he desires. If that doesn't work, he will then beat you with the stick.

While Locke's web site is lacking in details, what is offered makes it clear that he is not offering anything essentially different from Parker or Brown.

Sticks and Stones

Texas Sen. Judith Zaffirini (D-Laredo) has introduced a bill that would require "person first respectful" language in all state statutes and resolutions. According to KHOU:

The bill would ban the use of eight terms in all state statutes and resolutions. They are: disabled, developmentally disabled, mentally disabled, mentally ill, mentally retarded, handicapped, cripple and crippled.

It would replace those terms with these: persons with disabilities, persons with developmental disabilities, persons with mental illness and persons with intellectual disabilities.

Supporters of the bill say words like retarded and handicapped are hurtful:

Mary Herbert, who has been in a wheelchair all her life as a result of cerebral palsy and other complications, says she is 100 percent behind the bill.

"I've heard them all my life, and no, it's not right," she said. "It's like they're trying to put a label on us, and to me, it's not right."

Herbert says many times, people look at her wheelchair and never look up to see the person in the chair.

"I'm a wheelchair, so what?" she said. "That's the way I look at it. I'm the one who has to deal with it. They don't. I really don't think people like me ought to be typecast."

Sen. Zaffirini and supporters of this bill are suffering from a severe case of reality deprivation. They seem to believe that if we call the mentally retarded something else, they will suddenly be able to perform calculus and boorish individuals will see the error of their ways. But the fact is, no matter what we call the mentally retarded, those individuals will remain mentally retarded. And boorish individuals will remain boorish individuals.

Ms. Herbert doesn't like having a label attached to her, as if "person with disabilities" isn't a label. Regardless, she would be well advised to learn that age-old retort:

Sticks and stones can break my bones,
But words can never harm me.

Of course, words can harm me, particularly when they are used to write laws that violate individual rights. And that is where Zaffirini's bill is headed. Her bill may apply only to state statutes and resolutions now, but it is only one small step to ban such language throughout the state. If it is hurtful for legislators to use such language, it is no less so when Bubba uses it.

If I want to call someone a retard, or a dick head, or any other derogatory term, that is my right. If someone is offended by my choice of words, then they can choose point out my errors and shun me. But to prohibit me from using certain word because they are offended is, to be frank, to be a wussy. If my words offend you to the point that you need to use a gun to prohibit me from using them, then intercourse yourself.

I was never a fan of George Carlin, but I do appreciate his "Seven Words" routine. I first heard that routine, ironically enough, at a meeting of my church's youth group. At the time, I found it humorous and exciting--it challenged the ideas that were being thrown at me. Today I regard that routine as vulgar, and I am deeply offended by it. But he had a right to perform that routine, and it does not matter whether I, or my neighborhood, or my community, or anyone else is offended.

Vulgarity, boorishness, and plain stupidity should not be illegal. If that were the case, most of the members of Congress, the Supreme Court, and those working in the White House would be in jail. And so would Sen. Zaffirini, because she is obviously a "person with intellectual disabilities".