Zoning or not, Here They Come

Government officials frequently cite the government’s police powers as a justification for their policies. While this can seem plausible in some situations, the City of Houston has decreed that this includes dictating what color individuals may paint their home.

This past week, the Texas Supreme Court heard oral arguments in Powell v. City of Houston. The case centers on the city’s preservation ordinance. The ordinance requires property owners in designated historic districts to obtain permission before making esthetic changes to their property.

The plaintiff contends that this is de facto zoning, which is prohibited by the city charter. The city argues that it isn’t. But no matter how the Court rules, the preservation ordinance is a violation of property rights. 

The right to property means the freedom to create, attain, use, trade, and keep material values. It means the freedom to manufacture widgets and sell them to willing buyers without first begging for permission from government officials. It means the freedom to buy those widgets and use them as one desires. And it means the freedom to paint one’s house the color of one’s choosing without groveling at the feet of bureaucrats for approval.

Like all rights, the right to property doesn’t not give one the freedom to violate the rights of others—to use one’s property in a way that prevents others from using their property as they choose. The color of one’s house—no matter how hideous—does not violate anyone’s rights. We may not want a neighbor to paint his house Putrid Pink, but if he does so our rights have not been violated.

That the city finds it necessary to meddle into such mundane issues as paint colors is a sign of our times. When government officials do not think us capable of making rational choices regarding paint colors, they certainly aren’t going to allow us the freedom to make decisions during a pandemic.