Preservation vs. Affordable Housing

The Austin Historic Landmark Commission recently ruled against designating the former home of a Texas Supreme Court justice an historical landmark worthy of government protection. According to the Austin Monitor,

While commissioners determined that the house in question, 3204 Bridle Path, could be repaired, they did not find it architecturally significant enough to encourage that course of action through historic zoning.

The current owner of the property opposed the designation. While it is impossible to know what impact this had on the commission’s decision, the owner’s desires are all that should matter.

If the commission had found the house to be “architecturally significant,” they would have arbitrarily prevented the owner from using his property as he thought best. If he thinks that the property is worth repairing, he will do so without the cattle prods of a government bureaucracy. And if he thinks that the house should be demolished so the land can be used for a better purpose, that too is his moral right.

Interestingly, many in Austin bemoan the lack of affordable housing. Yet, they ignore the many regulations–zoning, environmental, preservation, and more–that impose outrageous costs on builders and developers.

Those costs come in many different forms. Often, they are simply mandates that force builders to meet energy and environmental standards. But often, those costs come from removing land from the market through minimum lot sizes or preservation. Since housing must be built on land, less available land drives up the cost of that which is available.

The do-gooders in Austin think that they can dictate their way to affordable housing and a great quality of life. Hopefully, they will discover that they are wrong before it is too late.