|

Rights are not a  Privilege

An opinion piece in the San Bernardino Sun essentially claims that zoning is an application of property rights:

When someone “owns” property, they own a “bundle” of ancillary rights. Bundle of rights is a term for a group of legal privileges granted to the owner at the time of purchase. The bundle contains ownership. Right to control; Right to exclude; Right to enjoy; And right to dispose.

Increasing housing density by doing away with single-family, he argues, “

can adversely affect most, if not all, neighboring rights…

Under existing law, private interference is interference with the use or enjoyment of property by the property owner if the interference is substantive and unreasonable. It’s easy to imagine that building a 10-unit home development in the middle of an existing single-family home neighborhood would be a “substantial and irrational” interference in its enjoyment.

It is also easy to imagine bats flying out of one’s ears, but that doesn’t make it reasonable.

I recently wrote about a mixed-use neighborhood that has commercial, single-family homes, and a 10-unit home development. This mixed use contributes to a more walkable neighborhood, while is all the rage these days.

More importantly, mixed uses do not create a “substantial and irrational interference” with the property rights of others. The right to property means the freedom to produce, use, keep, and trade material values, so long as one respects the freedom of others to do the same. A 10-unit development does nothing to hinder the exercise of these freedoms.

Rights are not a group of legal privileges granted to owners by government. If rights are merely granted privileges, then those “rights” can be removed at any time by that very same government. And that is what zoning does. Under zoning, an owner cannot use his property by right—as he deems best—but only with the permission of government officials.

The author would have us believe that using government coercion to prevent individuals from using their property as they choose is an application of property rights. The author defines property rights by non-essentials, and this doublespeak is the result.

Similar Posts

  • |

    Promises are Cheap

    The Biden Administration has announced plans to build or restore 2 million homes to address the housing shortage. This is a very grand plan, and it is receiving praise from many advocates for low-income housing. However, it is more than likely that the number of homes built or restored will fall far short of the…

  • Unleash the Swarm

    Despite a myriad of proposals and policies, there is no end in sight for the affordable housing crisis. Nearly all of these policies involve throwing more taxpayer money at the problem. If legislators truly want to solve the problem, they should unleash the swarm. And it won’t cost taxpayers a single penny. One of the…

  • Preferring a Vacant Lot

    Like many cities in America, St. Paul, Minnesota, is suffering from a severe shortage of affordable housing. And, as happens in many cities across the nation, some neighborhood groups in St. Paul are opposing a project that would provide homes for 144 low-income families. Opponents to the project would prefer a vacant lot rather than…

  • A History Lesson

    Many Americans view history as little more than a collection of semi-interesting stories. History, they believe, has little bearing on contemporary life. They believe that that was then, and this is now. Times have changed. Viewed properly, history is an intellectual laboratory. We can trace the intellectual causes and motivations of events, movements, and individuals….

  • |

    The Choices We Make

    In any discussion regarding public policy, we must consider the full context. In regard to affordable housing, the full context includes the choices that individuals make. Housing advocates conveniently ignore this issue. They point to poor families paying a large percentage of their income for housing, but fail to address the choices that have led…