Update 10/20/2009: When this was posted I did not realize that October 15 was "blog action day" and the theme was environmentalism. My choice of topic for this day was purely a coincidence. (HT: Gus Van Horn)
I am generally not one to jump on bandwagons. I usually find them too crowded for my tastes, not to mention the foul odor that seems to emanate from them. But over the summer I decided to hop aboard the "go green" bandwagon.
My green initiative has several aspects. The first, and perhaps most significant, was dumping tons of water on my plants during this summer's drought. I realize that most "go green" initiatives involve conserving water, but as an individualist I will "go green" any damn way I want, thank you very much. The results of this prodigious water use were two-fold. First, my water bill rose significantly. Second, my plants stayed alive, and a few actually thrived. In contrast, my neighbor's yards turned brown, which is not very green in my book.
Another thing I did this summer was get serious about man-made pesticides. In the past I have used pesticides sparingly, primarily because I don't enjoy wandering around my yard spraying toxic chemicals when the temperature is approaching 120 degrees. But I enjoy lace bugs on my azaleas, mealy bug on my hibiscus, and white fly on everything else even less. (Just in case you don't know, lace bugs will turn the leaves of azaleas a putrid gray color, and gray isn't green. Mealy bugs are scaly creatures that suck the life out of plants, and like white fly they are--can you guess--white. White isn't green either.) I realize that true "greenies" don't use man-made pesticides, but as I previously stated, I will "go green" in the manner that I choose.
Another part of my "go green" initiative actually involved something that rabid environmentalists might actually approve. I spent time perfecting my compost piles. You (and my wife) might think it silly to have compost piles in the middle of the nation's fourth largest city. You (and my wife) are wrong.
Compost provides micro-nutrients, microbes, and other yummy stuff to the soil and plants. It makes plants healthy, wealthy, and wise. It breeds earthworms, and earthworms are our friends--they chew up dead organic material and create lots of tiny holes in the ground. And the best part is, worm poop (technically called "castings") is very nutrient rich.
I used to buy dozens of bags of compost each year to spread throughout my yard and gardens. I tended to do this over a few weekends each spring, and it was back breaking work. Now, I can spread a little compost each week, providing my adorable little plants with fresh compost throughout the year. It saves my back and the soil benefits from the steady application of humus. (Humus should not be confused with hummus, which I actually enjoy eating.) And my wife doesn't think that so silly.
An unexpected benefit of my increased interest in compost was the opportunity to commune with nature. There is nothing quite like spending an hour turning a compost pile and letting the earthy smell of rotting vegetable matter waft into your nostrils. You just can't get that experience living in an apartment.
I've also learned many interesting facts about the biology of composting. For example, the ideal compost pile has about 5 parts "brown" to 1 part "green". Now, a rational person might think that "brown" and "green" refer to colors. And that would be wrong. "Brown" refers to carbon rich materials, like dead leaves. "Green" refers to nitrogen rich materials, like fresh grass clippings. So far the brown/ green dichotomy makes sense, but coffee grounds, manure, and urine are "green".
The results of my "go green" initiative have been mixed. This summer's drought undoubtedly stunted the growth of many of my plants. But I am optimistic about the long-term. My adventures with composting are showing signs of greatly benefiting the plants and reducing my watering requirements. My indiscriminate use of pesticides resulted in no mealy bugs or lace bugs this year. My "go green" initiative is not intended to save the planet or anything along those irrational lines. My "go green" initiative is intended for my benefit and my pleasure (and my wife's). And anyone who doesn't like that can kiss my jolly green thumb.
Thursday, October 15, 2009
Wednesday, October 14, 2009
Principles, Propositions, and Property Rights
When an individual abandons principles he approaches each issue in isolation from other issues. He has no way to integrate or connect seemingly separate issues, and deals with each on a case-by-case basis. The resulting conclusions are often contradictory, as evidenced by two recent editorials in the Chronicle that take contradictory positions on property rights.
The first editorial supports Prop 9, which will strengthen the Texas Open Beaches Act (TOBA):
TOBA--which I have previously addressed many times--allows the state to seize private property when storms or erosion shifts the beach. The justification for this brazen theft is "the public's" "right" to the beaches. The "risk" is not the action of Mother Nature, but the whims of the Texas Legislature.
The second editorial supports Prop 11, which will place limits on the use of eminent domain:
As I have previously written, the use of eminent domain to seize private property is wrong in principle, no matter the purpose. Indeed, the seizure of private property--whether through eminent domain, TOBA, or any other law--is morally wrong. (Of course, an individual who violates the rights of another person may properly be subject to such seizures as a form of punishment or to make restitution.) The Chronicle however, sees no connection between these issues, and cannot even take a consistent position on eminent domain.
The right to property is the right of use and disposal. Property rights sanction the use of material objects as the owner chooses, so long as he does not violate the mutual rights of others. If one makes an exception to this principle, declaring that property rights may be violated in some situations, one has abandoned the principle entirely. A "principle" with exceptions is not a principle, but a loose guideline that can be discarded on whim. And this is precisely the Chronicle's position.
Consider the editorial on eminent domain: The paper is opposed to seizure of private property for "economic motives", but is not opposed to such seizures when they are for "necessary purposes". But what is a "necessary purpose"? How will this be determined, and who will make such a determination? No answer is given.
Virtually anything can be declared a "necessary purpose" with enough rationalization and evasion. Building a rail line or widening a street could be considered a "necessary purpose". So could the redevelopment of a neighborhood, or the construction of a marina, or any number of "economic motives". A "necessary purpose" for one person may not be a "necessary purpose" for another. The person whose property is being seized certainly doesn't consider the intended use a "necessary purpose".
Having accepted the idea that private property may be seized in certain situations, the paper can only bicker that some purposes are "going too far" and some takings are "unfair":
I agree that property owners should have a choice--to sell or not to sell. But why doesn't this also apply to beach front property owners or those forced to sell for "necessary purposes"? Why is it "simple fairness" (not to mention moral) to allow some property owners to dispose of their property as they choose, but other property owners are forced to sell? The Chronicle does not answer this question.
If the Chronicle, or anyone, wishes to defend property rights, it must do so consistently, completely, and without exception. If it believes that certain situations warrant the seizure of private property, it is defenseless when someone declares a particular purpose "necessary".
The motivation for the paper's contradictory positions is transparent. Both positions are popular with Texans. Many Texans have no problem seizing private property when they perceive some benefit--such as beach access--but they do not like the idea that their property might be seized for the benefit of someone else. (As a concrete example, see the contradictory position of the home owners opposing the Ashby High Rise.) They want their property rights protected, but are not willing to protect the mutual rights of others. What they, like the Chronicle, don't realize is that they cannot pick and choose when to apply a principle. Sadly, they might learn that lesson when it is too late.
The first editorial supports Prop 9, which will strengthen the Texas Open Beaches Act (TOBA):
We believe strengthening and clarifying the laws relating to public access, as Proposition 9 would do, is both proper and necessary. As Texas Gulf Coast residents know all too well, Mother Nature can change the landscape of beaches abruptly. That is one of the acknowledged risks of building a vacation home on the sand. Granting a permanent public easement onto our beaches seems likely to avoid confrontation and confusion while ensuring the broadest possible access. In short, it is in the spirit of opening beaches that has been built in Texas over half a century.
TOBA--which I have previously addressed many times--allows the state to seize private property when storms or erosion shifts the beach. The justification for this brazen theft is "the public's" "right" to the beaches. The "risk" is not the action of Mother Nature, but the whims of the Texas Legislature.
The second editorial supports Prop 11, which will place limits on the use of eminent domain:
Preventing takings for economic motives is consistent with Texans' historically strong support for property rights. At the same time, it would not impede eminent domain takings for necessary purposes.
As I have previously written, the use of eminent domain to seize private property is wrong in principle, no matter the purpose. Indeed, the seizure of private property--whether through eminent domain, TOBA, or any other law--is morally wrong. (Of course, an individual who violates the rights of another person may properly be subject to such seizures as a form of punishment or to make restitution.) The Chronicle however, sees no connection between these issues, and cannot even take a consistent position on eminent domain.
The right to property is the right of use and disposal. Property rights sanction the use of material objects as the owner chooses, so long as he does not violate the mutual rights of others. If one makes an exception to this principle, declaring that property rights may be violated in some situations, one has abandoned the principle entirely. A "principle" with exceptions is not a principle, but a loose guideline that can be discarded on whim. And this is precisely the Chronicle's position.
Consider the editorial on eminent domain: The paper is opposed to seizure of private property for "economic motives", but is not opposed to such seizures when they are for "necessary purposes". But what is a "necessary purpose"? How will this be determined, and who will make such a determination? No answer is given.
Virtually anything can be declared a "necessary purpose" with enough rationalization and evasion. Building a rail line or widening a street could be considered a "necessary purpose". So could the redevelopment of a neighborhood, or the construction of a marina, or any number of "economic motives". A "necessary purpose" for one person may not be a "necessary purpose" for another. The person whose property is being seized certainly doesn't consider the intended use a "necessary purpose".
Having accepted the idea that private property may be seized in certain situations, the paper can only bicker that some purposes are "going too far" and some takings are "unfair":
In situations where economic development is the objective it is simple fairness to give property owners the benefits of choice, and of a marketplace sale. To force a sale upon them under such inflexible circumstances is inimical to constitutional principles enumerated in the takings clause. [emphasis added]
I agree that property owners should have a choice--to sell or not to sell. But why doesn't this also apply to beach front property owners or those forced to sell for "necessary purposes"? Why is it "simple fairness" (not to mention moral) to allow some property owners to dispose of their property as they choose, but other property owners are forced to sell? The Chronicle does not answer this question.
If the Chronicle, or anyone, wishes to defend property rights, it must do so consistently, completely, and without exception. If it believes that certain situations warrant the seizure of private property, it is defenseless when someone declares a particular purpose "necessary".
The motivation for the paper's contradictory positions is transparent. Both positions are popular with Texans. Many Texans have no problem seizing private property when they perceive some benefit--such as beach access--but they do not like the idea that their property might be seized for the benefit of someone else. (As a concrete example, see the contradictory position of the home owners opposing the Ashby High Rise.) They want their property rights protected, but are not willing to protect the mutual rights of others. What they, like the Chronicle, don't realize is that they cannot pick and choose when to apply a principle. Sadly, they might learn that lesson when it is too late.
Tuesday, October 13, 2009
"Unplanned" Charm in Montrose
The American Planning Association recently named Houston's Montrose one of its “10 Great Neighborhoods” for 2009. The Chronicle laments this award, because the planning that has occurred in Montrose was conducted privately, rather than by the city:
The only legitimate function of government is the protection of individual rights, including property rights. The paper doesn't tell us how a gas station, strip center, and fast food joint violates anyone's rights. There are two reasons doesn't tell us: 1. These businesses do not violate anyone's rights; 2. The Chronicle cares more about appearances than individual rights. Since the paper doesn't like the way this one particular corner looks, property rights are irrelevant.
The paper has made no secret of the fact that it wants much more stringent land-use regulations in Houston. It has jumped on the "quality of life"/ "protect" neighborhoods bandwagon with both feet and spools of newsprint. It has a vision of what Houston should look like and wants government to force all Houstonians to toe the line to make that vision a reality. And this is the crux of the matter from the Chronicle's perspective.
As the pro-planning group Blueprint Houston recently pointed out, three of the intersection's four corners are occupied by pedestrian-hostile blah-ness: a gas station, a dispirited-looking half-empty strip center and a drive-thru restaurant. No planner in his right mind would allow such crud to command that spot.To the Chronicle, a planner "in his right mind", i.e., a rational planner, wouldn't allow what the paper considers "crud". While the editorial fails to tell us what constitutes rational planning or "crud", the real meaning is quite clear: Unless planning is dictated by some central authority, it isn't really planning. Since land-use is being determined by the choices of property owners and the market, it really isn't planning.And there's the irony. Planning can't take credit for the off-beat charms of Montrose. But without at least some planning — public, private or both — that unplanned charm may disappear. [emphasis added]
The only legitimate function of government is the protection of individual rights, including property rights. The paper doesn't tell us how a gas station, strip center, and fast food joint violates anyone's rights. There are two reasons doesn't tell us: 1. These businesses do not violate anyone's rights; 2. The Chronicle cares more about appearances than individual rights. Since the paper doesn't like the way this one particular corner looks, property rights are irrelevant.
The paper has made no secret of the fact that it wants much more stringent land-use regulations in Houston. It has jumped on the "quality of life"/ "protect" neighborhoods bandwagon with both feet and spools of newsprint. It has a vision of what Houston should look like and wants government to force all Houstonians to toe the line to make that vision a reality. And this is the crux of the matter from the Chronicle's perspective.
Individual liberty allows individuals to pursue their own values without interference from others, so long as they respect the mutual rights of their fellow citizens. The result can be the kind of eclectic development that has occurred in Montrose. The Chronicle may not like this, but one's likes and dislikes do not justify using government coercion.
Continuing its evasion, the editorial argues that Montrose will loose its "charm" if some type of planning does not occur. If that "charm" resulted from the absence of planning--as the paper claims--then why is planning needed to maintain that "charm"? If the free and voluntary choices of property owners has created a "charming" neighborhood, then what does the Chronicle expect planning to achieve? The answers become clear when we identify what planning really means.
While advocates of land-use regulations are reticent to use the "z-word"--zoning--they have not deviated from their goal. Recognizing that Houstonians do not want zoning, they have taken a back-door to their goal of controlling land-use in the city. Zoning, they say, won't work in Houston, but the city still needs "planning". As I have pointed out, planning without the means of implementation is pointless. Any plan developed by the city will require extensive land-use regulations.
A property owner then, will only be permitted to use his land in accordance with the city's plan. Any use that deviates from that plan will require the land owner to grovel at the feet of city officials. As evidence, see what the city has done to the developers of the Ashby High Rise. A property owner who wishes to do something "charming" will have to conform to the dictates of city officials. Which means, the city's idea of "charming" will be imposed upon the land owner. This is the goal of planning.
If the Chronicle had its way, Montrose would be a much different neighborhood than it is today. Rather than responding to changing market conditions, property owners would be compelled to respond to the demands and dictates of city bureaucrats and politicians. And that is not very charming.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
