Cracking Down on Contractors

I have recently stumbled across a number of stories regarding various states cracking down on unlicensed contractors. In several of these stories the state set up a sting to attract contractors to bid on a job, and then arrested those who did not have a state license.

The alleged purpose of state licensing of contractors is to protect consumers from poor quality work. Most of the stories I read imply that unlicensed contractors are inherently dishonest crooks who will take the customer's money and then disappear. The headline from a 2006 story captures this attitude: "Unlicensed Contractors Will Rip You Off".

Such implications are grossly fallacious--they label all unlicensed contractors on the basis of the actions of a few. And even if such claims were true in general, they would tell us nothing about the character of any particular contractor. Indeed, I have been an unlicensed contractor for more than twenty years (licensing isn't required for my particular trade).

Certainly, nobody wants to get ripped off by a contractor. However, licensing does not prevent an individual from engaging in fraud, performing poor quality work, or insure customer satisfaction. All licensing does is breed a false sense of security for consumers, raise costs for everyone, and violate the rights of consumers and those in the licensed profession.

While the details vary, licensing imposes additional costs--such as the license fee and insurance requirements--on the contractor and those costs must ultimately be passed on to the consumer. Further, by limiting entry into the profession, licensing reduces competition, which also imposes upward pressure on prices.

For consumers, licensing limits the options available. They do not have the choice of hiring a hard working, conscientious individual to paint their living room if he lacks the credentials required by the state. They cannot choose a contractor who has not been anointed by the state--in many states it is illegal to hire an unlicensed contractor. For example, in Nevada a contract between a consumer and an unlicensed contractor is not recognized as valid:

Homeowners who use unlicensed contractors are not eligible for the Residential RecoveryFund, and by law their contracts are null and void.

Even though both parties entered the agreement voluntarily, the state refuses to recognize or enforce that agreement. Rather than protect the right to contract--the right of an individual to offer a service and the right of others to hire him to perform that service--the government is dictating the terms of a voluntary interaction between individuals.

Individuals can have many different needs and desires when hiring a contractor. Some are willing to pay more for high quality work, an exceptional service experience, or the peace of mind that comes with hiring an established company. Others may be more concerned with budgetary considerations, prefer a quick fix, or have other reasons for hiring a less qualified contractor. But these decisions are properly made by the individuals involved, not some bureaucrat. Licensing prevents individuals from acting on their own judgment.

If you think that licensing truly protects consumers, then consider the fact that the state also licenses drivers. Such licensing does not, and cannot, keep incompetent drivers off the roadways. If the state does such a miserable job in that regard, what makes you think that they can do any better when it comes to licensing contractors?

The Hazards of Walking

The headline on the front page of Tuesday's Chronicle sounds alarming: "Why walking in Houston is hazardous to your health". The story goes on to tell us that an average of 100 pedestrians die each year in the eight-county Houston region. The city's development practices is cited as the causal factor:

It can also be extremely hazardous in the Houston region, where car-oriented development and wide, busy commercial strips create a hostile environment for foot traffic.

Houston ranked eighth on a new list of the most dangerous urban areas for pedestrians.

And the hundreds of deaths and injuries to pedestrians can’t all be written off as mere accidents, according to a report released Monday by two advocacy groups. Poor roadway design and lack of safety features like sidewalks and medians contribute to the death rate.

On the surface the story seems innocent enough. Pedestrians are getting hit by cars and that isn't a good thing. No reasonable person would argue otherwise. Citing the report issued Monday, the article states:

The report calls for communities to adopt better road design standards that also include the needs of pedestrians and bicyclists, not just cars.

If we consider this issue in isolation, divorced from any other discussion of development in Houston, suggestions for road designs that better accommodate pedestrians might seem reasonable. However, to do so is to drop the context and that isn't a good thing.

For years politicians and assorted activists have been pushing Houston towards "form-based code"--a type of land-use regulation. Unlike traditional zoning, "form-based code" does not dictate how a parcel of property may be used, but does dictate certain aspects of its design and functionality, i.e., its form. For example, building set backs, "public" areas, and similar features are often a part of such mandates. Two popular versions of "form-based codes" are Smart Growth and SmartCode. Both aim to create "walkable" neighborhoods.

I do not know if the author of this piece is an advocate of "form-based code". But her article plays right into the arguments presented by those who are. The web site for SmartGrowth.org states:

Walkable communities are desirable places to live, work, learn, worship and play, and therefore a key component of smart growth.

If walking in Houston is hazardous to one's health, then creating "walkable" neighborhoods suddenly becomes a public health issue. The debate is no longer framed in terms of land-use regulations or controls on private development, but as one of protecting the welfare of the citizenry. And who would be opposed to that?

For starters, I am. Government's purpose is not the protection of our welfare, but of our rights. Anything and everything could be "justified" under the pretense of protecting our welfare. Making poor investments, or eating an unhealthy diet, or playing video games all day long could be considered harmful to our welfare. If government should be protecting our welfare, then anything harmful--real or potential--could be prohibited.

If it seems like a stretch that land-use regulations would be enacted as a means of protecting the "public's" health, consider the history of zoning, which is the most egregious form of land-use regulation. In city after city, zoning has been used as a tool to promote virtually every special interest imaginable, including mandates for "public" art, green space requirements, prohibiting "unwanted" minorities, and more.

Those who want more stringent land-use controls in Houston will seize upon anything that will promote their cause. Historically, they have had no reservations about hiding their intentions, misrepresenting their goals, or smearing their opponents. They will use whatever they believe will resonate with the public in an attempt to emotionalize the debate.

The sad thing is, while walking in Houston may be hazardous, more stringent land-use regulations will be far more devastating. As tragic as 100 pedestrians death a year are, they will pale in comparison to the destruction wrought by more government control over our property.

Don't Sweat the Small Stuff 39

And Then There Were Two
Last Tuesday's mayoral election was like elimination night on Dancing with the Stars. We knew that somebody was going to get the boot, but we weren't sure who it would be. I must admit that I was pleasantly surprised that it was Peter Brown who did not make the runoff, because now I won't have to put up with any more of his television commercials.

So now we are down to Annise Parker and Gene Locke, who will now meet in a runoff on December 13. Virtually indistinguishable in their positions, victory in the runoff will require that each seek new supporters among those who voted for Brown and Roy Morales. The conservative vote, which gave Morales his surprisingly strong showing, will likely be the primary target of the candidates. And how will they appeal to these voters? Locke provided an insightful answer during an interview with Matt Stiles:

You look to the candidates who did not make the runoff. You look at the base of their supporters, and you try to see what it is that you can say that is appealing to them...

For Locke, the runoff is about saying the "right" things. And what are the "right" things? Whatever will appeal to voters. Whether Locke actually believes those things or not seems to be entirely beside the point--his goal is to collect votes. If he needs to bend his position a little (or a lot), so be it.

In their zeal to collect votes both Locke and Parker will attempt to broaden their appeal, which ultimately means being all things to all people. They will tailor their message to whatever group they happen to be speaking to at the moment, and then deliver an often contradictory message to the next group. They will state vague generalities about making government more efficient and cutting waste, fighting crime, and making the skies bluer, but they will refuse to provide concrete details how they will accomplish these things. This has been their track record for the past ten months or so, and there is no reason to think that this will change during the runoff.

No matter who wins this runoff, the citizens of Houston will lose.

The Pot Calling the Kettle . . .
A few weeks ago the Chronicle reported that Kay Staley, a Houston real estate agent and lawyer, is suing the city for prayers before council meetings that allegedly promote Christianity. While such prayers are inappropriate, this probably wouldn't make my Top 100 list of important issues that should be addressed. In fact, I wouldn't have even brought this up except for Staley's argument:

She said she's offended because the praying goes against the teaching of Jesus. Heavily quoting the Bible, the lawsuit argues Jesus taught praying was not to be flaunted in public but to be done in private.

Does it strike you as more than a little odd hypocritical that Staley is protesting the promotion of Christianity by referring to a Christian document? Staley--who calls herself a "freethinker"--apparentlly didn't think this one through very well. It's people like her who give atheists a bad name.

The Deterrent Effect of Capital Punishment
Chronicle columnist Rick Casey reports on a study that shows capital punishment has a small, but meaningful deterrent effect. Whether executions deter future crimes is not--or at least, should not be--the purpose of capital punishment. Punishment is just that--punishment. Any deterrent effect is an added bonus.