Save Property Rights, not the Alabama

For years preservationists have been trying to "save" the old Alabama Theater on Shepherd. It now appears that the interior of the building will be stripped on its funky Art Deco accoutrements and prepared for a prospective tenant (rumored to be Staples). The Chronicle, along with the Greater Houston Preservation Alliance, is pushing for Alamo Drafthouse, a chain that shows movies and serves dinner and adult beverages, to open a location in the Alabama:

We'd love to see the Alabama returned to its glory as a theater.

Nobody is stopping the Chronicle from making this come true. All they have to do is negotiate a lease with the property owner and pony up the money. But putting their money where their mouth is isn't the Chronicle's style. Rather than reach for their wallet, they prefer to reach for a gun--or more accurately, they prefer to encourage the city to reach for its gun:

Most cities aggressively protect the handful of places that make them special. Houston doesn't. We offer incentives to make stadium deals work for sports teams. Why not make historic preservation more attractive to business? So far, Houston has taken only tentative steps in that direction. We need to do better. And we need to start soon, while there's something left to protect.

Consider the nifty little trick the paper plays here. Since the city is offering bribes to sports teams, the city should also offer incentives to other businesses to preserve historic buildings. And what is the nature of those "incentives"? "Aggressive" protection, which means ordinances that dictate and control how a property owner may use his property. This type of "incentive" is akin to a thug sticking a gun into your ribs to "encourage" you to hand over your money.

Once again the paper looks to other cities and cries, "We should be more like them." Other cities protect old buildings, and Houston should do the same. Other cities have mass transit, and Houston should emulate them. Other cities control land use, billboards, and myriad other activities, and if Houston wants to be a "world-class city", we must follow suit.

The Chronicle believes it proper to dictate to property owners, to mandate how they can use their property, to prohibit uses those some don't like. No matter the problem, real or imaginary, large or small, the paper's inevitable solution is more government controls.

Conveniently ignored in this endless plea for more government intervention into our lives is the fact that other cities have driven housing costs through the roof, that other cities are losing jobs and citizens, that increased government controls are destructive to individual freedom and prosperity. The paper and other advocates of government intervention evade the reasons why Houston housing is among the most affordable in the nation and why the city has been among the nation's leaders in job creation--the relative lack of government intervention.

The Alabama Theater is certainly a unique and fun building. But no building in Houston is worth saving at the expense of our property rights--the owners have a moral right to do as they choose with their property. If the paper truly wants to preserve something, property rights would be a great place to start.

Fiddling While Houston Burns

While the city is struggling to find ways to close an estimated budget deficit of $110 over the next two years, city council seems poised to approve a deal with the Dynamos to build a new soccer stadium. The city will spend $10 million from property taxes to improve infrastructure around the site, on top of the $15 million the city previously spent to buy the land.

To call this irresponsible would be a gross understatement. City officials acknowledge that they are short on revenues, and their response is to spend more money that they don't have.

City officials have been pushing for this giant playground for years. Supposedly it will ultimately generate revenue for the city, which I am sure will be a great relief to the tax payers footing the bill today. While many Houstonians are struggling to pay their mortgage, the city has decided, once again, that it is a better steward of our money than we are.  While many Houstonians are tightening their belts in order to pay their bills, the city has decided that it doesn't need to do likewise.

The city has already threatened to lay off workers as one step to close the deficit. We will undoubtedly hear talk of reductions in services as time passes. And then, after city officials have allegedly cut all of the fat from the budget, the idea of raising taxes will be floated. They will whine that they have no other choice, while hoping that Houstonians forget their profligate spending.

City officials would have us believe that this atrocity is in the "public welfare" while ignoring the harm it inflicts on the individuals who actually comprise "the public". They would have us believe that they are promoting the "common good", as if robbing individuals is good for anyone. They would have us believe that the best interests of all Houstonians in mind, while ignoring the fact that they don't know all Houstonians or what our interests are.

This massive evasion is aided and abetted by Pragmatism. Having rejected principles, city officials treat each day and each event as disconnected and isolated. As an example, on the same day city council approved a deal to sell one stadium--the facility formerly known as the Summit--for a fire sale price, council considered a deal to build another boondoggle--the stadium for the Dynamos. They see no principle uniting the two. All they see is a "good" deal now. The fact that a previous "good" deal had to be disposed of at a bargain basement price is of no relevance.

That the Dynamo stadium deal will ultimately turn out bad for taxpayers is completely foreseeable--if one thinks in principles. Consider the following: the Summit was completed in 1975 at a cost of $27 million. It was sold for a paltry $7.5 million 35 years later--not exactly a very good investment. The Astrodome has been sitting vacant and rotting for years, costing taxpayers more than $1 million per year for the little maintenance that is performed. Last fall, the Chronicle reported that taxpayers may need to bailout the Harris Country-Houston Sports Authority (which helped build Minute Maid Park, Reliant Stadium and the Toyota Center) to the tune of $7 million per year.

Just in case you aren't keeping count, this means that the last 5 sports stadiums built in the city have all turned out to be a drain on taxpayers in one form or another, despite the promises of political leaders. What do we need to be smoking to believe that the 6th stadium is going to turn out differently?

The Implications of Selling the Summit

In an effort to reduce the city's budget deficit, Mayor Ma Parker wants to sell the facility formerly known as the Summit to Lakewood Church for $7.5 million. The Chronicle has endorsed the deal, and for that reason alone I am opposed.

I am not going to bother to examine the facts of the situation. That would require some research, as well as an identification of the principles involved. And frankly, I really don't have time for that. Since I often disagree with the Chronicle's position on an issue, I will conclude that that is also the case here. Not only does this save me time to do today's crossword puzzle, it shows that I am very consistent.

Rather than sell the property, I think that the city should milk it for more revenues. Lakewood is the nation's largest church, and it seems to me that there are untapped revenue sources here. Abandoning any pretense at having given this much thought, I would suggest that the city send squads of police officers to the area each Sunday. I suspect that they would find expired automobile registrations, people who aren't wearing their seat belts, and other excuses for writing tickets. Not only would these scofflaws get their just due, the city could raise oodles of money. Praise Jesus!

The city could also send hordes of the homeless to the area and equip them with signs reading things like "Homeless, but concerned about the city's budget deficit" and "I don't want to work, but I will beg to help the city's budget deficit". The city could split any donations received with the beggars (after deducting the cost of the signs, of course). This is a complete win-win-win. The homeless get some easy beer money; the city gets some badly needed revenue; and Lakewood's parishioners get an opportunity to donate to a worthy cause. Do I hear an amen?

Some may argue that the city could sell the property and still follow my suggestions. That may be true, but so what? As I said previously, I haven't given this much thought, and I'm not about to start now.

The Chronicle argues that the city should sell the property now, rather than waiting for the current lease to expire in 23 years. This, the paper claims, is financially prudent. While I would agree, I fail to see why the city should start being concerned about sound financial decisions. To do so would require city officials to reconsider programs such as Houston Hope and improving the energy efficiency of private homes, not to mention getting out of the water and sanitation businesses. (Oops, I mentioned it.) Why bust up a streak of imprudent decisions that goes back for decades?

Selling properties that have nothing to do with the city government's only legitimate purpose--protecting individual rights--might set a dangerous precedent. If city officials began to think in principles, they might realize that the city should also sell libraries and parks, divest itself of its interest in sports stadiums, and get rid of most of the property it owns. Sure, this would raise scads of cash and allow the city to slash its budget (and therefore taxes), but that would also give Houstonians more control over their own money, and therefore their own lives. And I have reason to believe that ceding such power would be more than most city officials could bear.

And, if city officials really thought about it further and decided to be really, really principled, they would then start repealing ordinances that violate individual rights, like business regulations and controls on land-use. How could we possibly function, let alone prosper, if the city left us alone to act according to our own judgment (so long as we respect the mutual rights of others)?

Selling the facility formerly known as the Summit is a bad idea. It might lead to some crazy consequences, like individual freedom.

P.S.: This post was written on Wednesday morning, before the city agreed to sell the facility formerly known as the Summit. Hopefully, they will reconsider in light of the points made in this post.

P.S.S.: This April Fool's Day post is satirical. Selling the facility formerly known as the Summit is a good idea, and so is selling most of the city's other properties.