Physical Address

304 North Cardinal St.
Dorchester Center, MA 02124

Tag property rights

Urban[ism] Legend: The Myth of Herbert Hoover

Herbert Hoover is not a man I consider a “Legend” – quite the contrary.  I use the words “Urbanism Legend” in the context of the series of posts intended to dispel popular myths as they relate to urbanism. Myths and fallacies about Herbert Hoover are abundant these days as the media discusses the Great Depression. Most of the myths incorrectly accuse Hoover of being a laissez-faire ideologue. However, Hoover is better described as a Progressive, and strongly believed in the power of government to shape society. (at the time Progressive elitists enjoyed a home within the Republican party and advocated vast social engineering programs such as alcohol prohibition) This was a significant departure from the relatively laissez-faire doctrines of previous Republican Presidents Coolidge and Harding. In fact, Hoover’s commitment to progressive programs prompted Franklin Roosevelt’s running mate, John Nance Garner, to accuse the Republican of “leading the country down the path of socialism” during the 1932 presidential campaign. I urge everyone to learn more about Hoover’s progressive interventionist policies on your own. (I also recommend Rothbard’s America’s Great Depression)  But, let’s look at Hoover’s anti-urbanist interventions, and legacy of sprawl. Hoover, an engineer by trade, was a strong supporter of the Efficiency Movement, a significant campaign of the Progressive Era.  He believed everything would be made better if experts identified the problems and fixed them, and that efficiency could be achieved through government-forced standardization of products. This helps explain Hoover’s zealous affection for planning, zoning, home ownership, and various objectives often shared by the (often conflicting) elitist-progressive strains seen in Robert Moses or Lewis Mumford (and later New Urbanists).   (not to be confused with the Roosevelt New Deal Democrats who preferred intervention to promote decentralization and ruralization) Hoover’s philosophy on planning and zoning could be exemplified by his praise of […]

Illinois Court Rules Against Chicago’s “Vague” Landmark Ordinance

Chicago Real Estate Daily: An Illinois appellate court has struck down the city of Chicago’s landmarks ordinance, saying it is unconstitutionally vague, putting in jeopardy the city’s protection of more than 250 buildings and 50 historic districts. Judge James Fitzgerald Smith of the three person Appellate Court wrote, “We believe that the terms ‘value,’ ‘important,’ ‘significant,’ and ‘unique’ are vague, ambiguous, and overly broad”, and thus found the ordinance in violation of the state constitution. The case involved two plaintiffs and two landmarked districts where attempts to downzone the areas failed before landmarking. However, once the case (including appeals) is over, Chicago’s entire landmarks ordinance would be completely invalidated. Wow! I am surprised this isn’t making bigger waves in Chicago, and other cities. What should we expect to happen if appeals by The City should fail? Would property owners rush to tear down their landmarks before The City enacts a new landmarks ordinance? Per Tribune Architecture critic, Blair Kamin (who calls the ruling wrong-headed, but fielded some good comments): The laws are based on a 1978 U.S. Supreme Court ruling which stopped the bankrupt Penn Central Railroad’s attempt to pile a 55-story office building atop New York City’s Beaux-Arts Grand Central Terminal. In that ruling, the court held that communities have the right to safeguard significant pieces of property, so long as they do not trample the rights of the properties’ owners. The key word is “significant,” a word that appears frequently in Chicago’s seven criteria for landmark designation, as in the site of a significant historical event or a building that is the work of a significant architect. It makes you wonder if there is a more robust solution to landmarks that does less to compromise the property rights of the land owners, and isn’t vulnerable to unforeseen court […]

Another Angle on Planning in Houston

Brian Phillips at Live Oaks contacted me regarding the recent post by Stephen Smith on planning in Houston. Brian is a long time opponent of land use restrictions and defender of property rights in Houston. Brian has a different point of view on the subject, and has written a post on his blog, which I hope will spark some lively conversation. Brian invited me to publish a copy of his post at Market Urbanism. Tomorrow, I hope my schedule gives me the opportunity to share some of my thoughts on the topic, because I sympathize with both authors’ points of view. In the meantime, I want to share Brian’s post right away to get readers reactions to it: Urban Legends: Myths About Houston by Brian Phillips In a recent posting titled “Is Houston really Unplanned?” on Market Urbanism, Stephen Smith attempts to debunk alleged myths about Houston and planning. In the process, he actually engages in a much more widespread error–the failure to essentialize. (Here is a good explanation of essentializing.) Smith cites several examples of land use regulations in Houston, such as minimum lot size mandates and regulations dictating parking requirements for new development. He argues that these regulations, along with the city’s enforcement of deed restrictions, refute claims that Houston has developed primarily on the basis of free market principles. Smith’s position is common. Zoning advocates actually used similar arguments in the early 1990’s. Zoning advocates were wrong then, and Smith is now. Admittedly, Houston is not devoid of land use regulations. But the nature, number, and scope of those regulations is significantly different from other cities. There is an essential difference between the regulations in Houston and those in other cities. The permitting process in Houston is relatively fast compared to other cities, and the expenses incurred […]

The Moral Case Against Rent Control

In Market Urbanism’s four part series on rent control, I avoided the topic of the morality of rent control, as I intended to address the economic issues and leave the morality to others. Thankfully, J. Brian Phillips of the Ad Hoc Committee for Property Rights is an expert on the subject. In his blog, he linked to the recent Retail Rent Control post, and took the time to address the moral issue: But the real issue isn’t political. The real issue is moral. A large part of the public sees nothing wrong with forcing others to provide for their wants and desires. And there is a steady stream of politicians all too eager to propose laws to grant them their wishes. They think that their wishes can somehow transform reality, that if they pass a law with the intention of creating affordable widgets, affordable widgets will result. They think that politicians are nothing more than genies who can grant their wish simply by writing a law. It doesn’t work that way. Reality is not malleable to one’s wishes. He makes plenty of good points, so I recommend reading the whole post. He concludes: Each individual has a moral right to live for his own happiness. He has a right to the fruits of his labor. He has a right to pursue his values without intervention from others, so long as he respects their mutual rights. Human beings are not sacrificial animals. Also, here’s another another article on the morality of rent control: Why Rent Control is Immoral by Michael S. Berliner, Ph.D. The morality issue belongs as a prominent part of the rent control discussion, but is seldom heard among all the progressive anti-market rhetoric.

The Market, Zoning, and Freedom.

J. Brian Phillips wrote a great post at Houston Property Rights about liberal property rights in Houston, but what Brian had to say applies to every place. Here’s a snippet, but the entire post deserves a reading: when developers and builders see a need for greater density, they respond accordingly. And they can respond relatively quickly because they do not need to spend years seeking the approval of those who do not own the property. The market is a dynamic place. Each participant is motivated by his own self-interest, seeking to find the best use for his abilities and assets. When the market is unfettered, individuals can act as their judgment dictates, even when others think their ideas are folly. They need not convince the ignorant, the short-sighted, or bureaucrats. They need only convince those who choose to deal with them– their investors, their employees, and their customers. And each of these are motivated by their own self-interest. Those who seek to impede the market, which means impede the voluntary choices of individuals, are motivated by something entirely different. For all of their rhetoric about protecting the public or promoting the common good, their real goal is control. Their real goal is control over the men and women who build and produce. His writing concisely conveys many great points, and then he wraps it up with a rallying closing: no individual has a right to demand that others provide for his sustenance or happiness. He cannot compel others to provide for him, just as others cannot compel him to provide for them. He cannot force others to sacrifice for him, nor can others force him to sacrifice for them. That is not anarchy, that is the rule of objective law. That is freedom.

Economakis Family Threatened by Friends of Rent Control

The Economakis family has been threatened my some members of the community who planned a protest tonight against their family using their own property as a home. See this truly despicable flyer calling friends of rent control to arms. [image from curbed] Here’s Mr. Economakis’ response: Response to the July 11, 2008 Protest – a threat to my family and property: I have always respected the rights of people to express themselves regarding my desire to make the building I own a home for me and my family. However, the latest expression of certain persons cannot go without comment. Our neighborhood was recently papered with a flyer announcing another protest in front of 47 East 3rd Street. This flyer states it is the work and the expression of a group identifying themselves as “LES” and is offensive on numerous fronts: not only for its profanity (is this really what our neighborhood children should be taught is an acceptable way to express oneself?) but for attributing to me the statement “Let Them Eat Cake”. I never made this statement nor any other like it. I find the statement offensive; and further I find its attribution to me to be threatening. As the statement was invoked to justify the death and destruction that came with the French Revolution, I hope that persons attending the protest do not mistakenly use it to justify the destruction of property. While I respect that people have the right to disagree with my position regarding wanting to make the building I own my home, and while I believe that these persons are allowed to exercise such disagreement through peaceful means, I am disturbed that the tenor of this protest is not only threatening in nature, but is also encouraging protestors to damage the very property they presumably […]

Historic Preservation Can Work in the Marketplace

Houston Strategies – Historic preservation should be a neighborhood choice “In Houston’s Old Sixth Ward, the city’s first fully protected district, property values have shot up 27 percent in the last year. When given the chance, historic preservation works.” This is great news! It means there should be absolutely no problem getting voluntary neighborhood buy-in for deed restrictions. If it boosts their values, who could be opposed? Why do we need the government to impose it, when it’s obviously in their own self-interest? I argued a similar point in comments about the Carroll Gardens’ downzoning. In the case of Historic Preservation, neighbors could voluntarily form a corporation that owns facade easements on their properties. The corporation would protect the historic structures via property rights, as opposed to by mandate. Outsiders could always donate money to the corporation to buy easements on certain historic properties or make repairs. Did you know that facade easement donations by owners of historic buildings are considered tax-deductible contributions? If a municipality really feels it needs to step in, it could purchase those easements at market price, but it would probably be unnecessary.

Somin: Causes of the Defeat of Prop 98

Ilya Somin at Volokh – Causes of the Defeat of Proposition 98 There were two major causes of Prop 98’s defeat. One was the sponsors’ mistake in combining the popular cause of restricting eminent domain with a far less popular phaseout of rent control. The second and more unusual cause of 98’s defeat was the presence of Proposition 99 on the ballot. If you are interested in this, please check out Ilya Somin’s extensive writings on Proposition 98 and 99 at The Volokh Conspiracy.

Somin: Prop 99 Worse Than Nothing

Ilya Somin at Volokh: Why California’s Proposition 99 is a Lot Worse than Nothing Yesterday’s California returns show that Proposition 98 – the referendum initiative that would have imposed real restrictions on eminent domain and also phased out rent control – has been overwhelmingly defeated by a 61% to 39% margin. The rival Proposition 99 – an initiative sponsored by local governments and other pro-condemnation interests that only pretends to protect property rights – passed easily by 62 to 38.

Rent Control Part 4: Conclusion and Solutions

Welcome to the final post in the series discussing the consequences of rent control. Thank you to the subscribers who have patiently awaited each new post. I hope everyone found it enlightening. If you haven’t read the entire series, you can catch up with these links: Rent Control Part One: Microeconomics Lesson and Hording Rent Control Part Two: Black Market, Deterioration, and Discrimination Rent Control Part Three: Mobility, Regional Growth, Development, and Class Conflict Conclusion Rent control is not just a simple price control setting the price at which willing renters and landlords are permitted to do business, it is much worse.  It is a coercive act that gives landlords no legal option, but to rent to a tenant against his will, often at a financial loss.  Rent control adds a non-voluntary burden to landlords which deepens over time because landlords do not have the option to rent to a tenant at below market rates.  Not only does rent control cause huge distortions in the housing market, but the burdens fall disproportionately on the poor and underprivileged people it was intended to benefit. Although particular people are able to live with the comfort of low rent payments, even those renters will see their living conditions deteriorate as landlords neglect repairs and maintenance. As the situation gets worse, middle class residents are able to move away, leaving behind the poorest residents who have become reliant on the reduced rent. In effect, rent control grants property rights to renters, that originally belonged to the original property owners. Rent control becomes a redistribution of wealth to rent control tenants away from apartment owners, market apartment renters, and newcomers to the area. Nonetheless, over time the quality of life decreases for all residents of a city where rent control is imposed. Solutions So, it […]

Trending now

A self-defeating argument
Texas MUD
gentrification
Only 2 Ways to Fight Gentrification (you’re not going to like one of them)
The problem with “public” transportation