This was originally posted as a series on Live Oaks in June 2009. Comments have not been migrated.
Introduction
Politicians love to listen to citizen complaints. Complaints give the politician both a purpose and a justification. Solving the problem is the purpose, and the fact that the complaint was voiced to a government official provides justification for expanded government powers.
As an example, Annise Parker’s web site has a section titled “Houston Speaks”. Here, citizens can voice their displeasure about Houston and their opinions on how the city can be improved. The dominant issue raised on that page is the need for mass transit, and light rail in particular.
I’ve used the subway systems in both New York and London, and I will admit that they make for a relatively easy method for getting around town. Of course, the other alternatives can be expensive and difficult, and the city governments in those cities are largely responsible for this fact.
Much of the demand for rail in Houston seems to stem from similar experiences. Indeed, one poster on Parker’s site says: “I moved here from Chicago. Now that’s public transportation!” Another comment states: “Convenient neighborhood light-rail service to downtown and airport, like in other large cities.” In other words, these citizens want Houston to emulate other cities.
I have two questions to those who make such comments:
- Something about Houston was enticing enough for you to move here, and stay here. What was/ is it?
- If Chicago, or anywhere else, is so damn good, why didn’t you stay there?
These questions are rhetorical, because I am going to supply the answers in a moment. But I first would like to point out that underlying such comments is a gross evasion. Those who want Houston to emulate other cities ignore crucial facts about Houston and the cities they seem to love. They believe that there is nothing essentially different about Houston, other than the fact that we don’t have mass transit. And that, in their feeble minds, is a bad thing.
So what is it about Houston that attracts so many people that dislike our city? I’ve traveled the city far and wide for nearly thirty years, and I have yet to see a single sign advertising Houston as a Mecca for masochists. Since my arrival in 1980 I have heard an endless litany of complaints about Houston. Yet, our population continues to grow.
The reason is quite simple, but it seems to be lost on virtually every one of these whiners. We have jobs. Houston is filled with refugees from the Rust Belt—where jobs are disappearing faster than Boone’s Farm on skid row. And an increasing number are fleeing the West Coast and its obscene taxation.
Once in Houston, they pine for the “good old days” back in California, or New York, or whatever hell hole they fled. They want light rail, walkable neighborhoods, controlled growth, and all of the other things that created the problems in their Eden. They want to have their cake, and eat ours too.
The fact is, Houston is different from every other city in America. Houston shows a greater respect for individual rights—including property rights—than any other city. That fact is the primary reason why Houston created more jobs than any other city in 2008. That fact is the primary reason why our city has prospered. There is an indisputable connection between individual freedom and economic prosperity.
But freedom is not what many Houstonians want. They want to have their desires fulfilled by others, believing that if enough people support some proposal then it is proper and just. They don’t want to sit in their car for an hour drive to work, and have no qualms forcing their neighbor to help pay for a rail system. They want a nice house in the suburbs and a short commute. They want it all, and they want their neighbors to pay for it.
Just in case it isn’t clear, these people piss me off. They live in the greatest city in America, and they want to destroy it. They have no understanding of Houston’s greatness, the source of the jobs they are so happy to take, or the reason for our affordable housing. They view the economic benefits that they enjoy as a birthright, along with light rail and ample parks.
This week I will address this issue in more depth. I will indicate the connection between freedom in land-use and economic prosperity. I will show the vast number of options and choices available to Houstonians, in regard to both employment and where to live. I will show why Houston has more choices than the Shangri-Las these statists left behind. And finally, I will discuss why freedom of choice brings with it personal responsibility.
Property Rights and Economic Prosperity
More than any major city in America, Houston respects the property rights of its citizens. On three separate occasions Houstonians have rejected zoning—the most egregious violation of property rights prevalent in America.
The right to property means the right of use and disposal of material values. Ownership means the right to use one’s property as one judges best, in the pursuit of one’s own values. It means that one may use his property without interference from others, so long as he respects their mutual rights.
Zoning removes this right and subjects land-use to the control of government officials. Zoning requires the property owner to seek permission to use his property.
Land-use regulations have a significant impact on the affordability of housing. As I wrote in the Spring issue of The Objective Standard:
There is a direct correlation between freedom in land-use and economic prosperity. For example, University of Washington professor Theo Eicher found that Seattle and Washington State’s land-use regulations have increased the cost of a $450,000 median home in the city of Seattle by $200,000, even taking into account inflation and demand. That is a 44 percent increase. That $200,000 results in the typical Seattle homeowner paying an additional $1,100 a month in principal, interest, property taxes, and other charges that would not exist were it not for these rights-violating land-use regulations. The steep cost of zoning has made home ownership virtually impossible for a large percentage of Seattle’s residents.
A report issued by the Federal Reserve Bank of Dallas acknowledged that Houston’s low housing prices are largely the result of its relative respect for property rights:
Houston and other metros such as Dallas and Atlanta that have relatively more permissive development policies have lower housing prices than more restrictive places do.
At $155,800, Houston’s median house price is the third lowest among the 12 largest U.S. metropolitan areas and is less than half the average for these cities. Houston’s median price is lower than even the national average, which includes inexpensive rural areas.
By comparison, the median house price in metropolitan San Francisco, where zoning laws and building codes are very strict, is $825,400.
In other words, where land-use controls and other regulations on building are most restrictive, housing is more expensive, and often outrageously so. The consequences of these controls are not limited to home ownership—they impact the cost of doing business, and indeed the cost of living.
The absence of restrictive land-use controls in Houston allows developers to use land for its most efficient purpose. They can respond to the demands of the market, rather than the dictates of politicians and bureaucrats. They are free to act according to their own judgment, rather than pander to the whims of government officials.
Land-use regulations do not occur in a vacuum—they are usually accompanied with other controls on businesses and individuals. The mentality that embraces controls on land-use also embraces controls on other activities. Those who think it proper to dictate how their neighbors use their property do not limit themselves to land-use—virtually all activities are fair game. And with these controls come inefficiencies and additional costs. The end result is a higher cost of doing business, higher housing costs, and less economic activity—that is, job loss.
It is not a mere coincidence that those states with the most severe controls on economic activity are also the ones experiencing the most severe hardships during this recession. Just as freedom leads to economic prosperity, controls lead to economic stagnation and decline.
Those who want Houston to be like other cities—whether it is light rail, or more parks, or more land-use controls—cannot have it both ways. They cannot emulate the stagnant and decaying cities of the Rust Belt by enacting more controls and expect to escape similar consequences. They cannot expect us to embark on massive government projects and avoid the inevitable taxation that must result. They cannot expect us to enact the causes of economic collapse and yet avoid that outcome.
Transportation
One of the more frequently voiced complaints about Houston is the lack of mass transportation. The absence of light rail makes citizens dependent upon the automobile, a fact that many dislike. While I would agree that light rail would be nice, one cannot consider goals out of context. Yet, this is precisely what advocates of light rail do.
From a practical point of view, light rail is highly dubious. Ridership numbers for the existing line are below projections and make no sense financially. Despite this, Metro wants to add five additional light rail lines. Expanding light rail reminds me of the joke about the business owner who was selling his products below cost, and hoped to turn a profit by doing more volume. This is exactly what Metro proposes to do.
Morally, there is no justification for government building light rail. Expanding the system will require that Metro seize private property against the will of the rightful property owners through eminent domain. That alone is reason to be against light rail. However, the evil goes even further.
Taxpayers will be forced to pay for the construction of the system, whether they support rail or not. And through taxes they will be forced to subsidize the transportation costs of the few riders Metro manages to attract.
Light rail is a statist response to a legitimate issue. Houston’s freeways are certainly congested, but the solution is not further violations of the rights of Houstonians. The solution is greater freedom.
The ideal solution is to privatize all roads, which is not going to occur any time soon. The government’s monopoly on roads prevents businesses and entrepreneurs from offering innovative solutions while recognizing the rights of all individuals. In every realm where the free market can operate, entrepreneurs provide more options, greater efficiency, and lower costs than government alternatives.
Because the privatization of roads is not politically possible at this time, the challenge is to devise a plan that will address a legitimate issue, while simultaneously recognizing individual rights. In other words, given that the government will invariably be involved in one form or another, how do we improve transportation without expanding government power?
The first step would be to repeal all laws that prohibit or regulate private transportation options—such as controls on taxis, private buses, and private toll roads. This would provide the private sector with opportunities that are not currently available.
The second step would be to close down Metro and sell its assets. This would reduce sales taxes by one percent, which alone would provide additional capital to businesses and individuals.
These two measures would remove many arbitrary restrictions on private businesses. If a sufficient market exists for mass transit, profit seeking entrepreneurs will find methods for satisfying that demand. If such a market does not exist, then taxpayers will be freed from the burden of supporting the boondoggle that is Metro.
A third step that should be taken is to sell rights-of-way along freeways and major streets to private businesses. Again, if a market exists for light rail, entrepreneurs would find a way to meet that demand without forcing taxpayers to subsidize the cost. And if a market does not exist, then nobody is harmed.
While these measures will not provide immediate relief, government programs and proposals do not do so either. More importantly, the measures I have proposed are a step in the proper direction—they reduce the controls on private individuals, reduce taxes, and allow for more options in meeting the transportation requirements of Houstonians.
Housing and Development
While many clamor for the government to do something about our congested freeways, they conveniently ignore evidence that demonstrates how the free market provides options to individuals without violating rights.
The absence of zoning in Houston has allowed developers and builders to respond to changing market conditions with relative ease. They can change land-use to its most efficient purpose without wading through mountains of red tape and groveling at the feet of bureaucrats.
One of the remarkable features of Houston is the fact that the city has multiple business districts—downtown, Greenway Plaza, the Galleria, and the Energy Corridor are just a few. Where other cities force businesses into specific areas—often downtown—Houston has largely allowed the market to determine where businesses locate.
This fact provides significant relief on transportation. Rather than forcing all workers to commute to the center of the city, many work in other areas of the city. Rather than all roads leading to downtown, many lead to other areas of the city.
This allows employees options not found in other cities. A resident of The Woodlands or Kingwood can work in Greenspoint and significantly reduce his commute. A resident of Katy can work in the Energy Corridor and do likewise.
The development of these business centers did not occur because of government mandates. They were built because businesses and developers saw a need and found a way to satisfy it. They did not need government planning, controls, or regulations to tell them that it made sense to build outside of the central business district. They relied on their own judgment, and that of their investors.
Just as freedom in land-use has provided multiple options in regard to the location of businesses, and hence employment, freedom in land-use has also provided many options in regard to housing. Recognizing that many Houstonians desire shorter commutes, developers have transformed many downtown buildings into lofts and other housing. They have converted lots with single-family homes into multiple town homes, which eloquently illustrates how the market responds when it is left free.
The price of land has risen dramatically inside The Loop in response to greater demand for housing in that area. Using this land for a single-family home makes little economic sense—the cost for a home would be out of reach for most Houstonians. However, if a particular lot is used to build four single-family town homes, the cost of the land per unit is greatly reduced. New housing can be built much more affordably. And the greater density of the housing meets the increased demand. This is what has happened in Rice Military, the Heights, Montrose, the Museum District, and many other areas of the city.
Again, developers did this without mandates from the city government. They acted according to their own independent judgment, in response to the market. And in fact, in some instances—such as the Ashby High Rise—they have been opposed by the city government.
In short, where individuals have been free to act according to their own judgment in the pursuit of their own values, everyone has benefited. Where government has imposed restrictions and prohibited such freedom—such as transportation—everyone has suffered.
Freedom and Responsibility
Freedom means the absence of coercion. It means that each individual can act according to his own judgment without interference from others, so long as he respects their mutual rights. Freedom allows us to choose our values and the means by which we will attain them.
Freedom does not give us a claim to the values produced by others. It does not mean that others must satisfy our desires or needs.
Freedom carries with it the responsibility to choose wisely. If we choose wisely, we reap the benefits. If we choose poorly, we bear the consequences.
There are however, many who do not like this fact. They desire certain values but do not wish to engage in the actions necessary to attain them. They do not like the options available to them—such as transportation—and they seek to use government force to create additional options. In doing so, they limit the freedom of choice and options available to others—they compel other individuals to provide financial support for their values.
There are those who want an easy commute, and rather than move or find a new job, they demand that government build light rail for them. There are those who want their neighborhood to remain unchanged, and they demand that government prohibit the construction of certain projects. There are those who want “walkable” neighborhoods, and they demand that government mandate wider sidewalks and more green space. Such individuals have no reservations ceding their rights to government. Nor do they have a problem sacrificing the rights of their neighbors to satisfy their own desires.
More than other American cities, Houston has rejected these calls in the past and protected the rights of its citizens. The economic benefits that we enjoy—affordable housing, job growth, and a lower cost of living—are the practical benefits of this freedom. The many options we have in regard to places of employment and housing are a consequence of freedom of choice—both ours and that of our fellow Houstonians. Their freedom allows them to offer options to us, and our freedom allows us to choose those that satisfy our values.
I love Houston, and not just because I live here. I choose to live here, because I love and value freedom.
The prosperity that Houstonians enjoy has a cause. We will not and cannot continue to experience economic growth while destroying its cause. We will not and cannot continue to enjoy an abundance of affordable housing options while enacting more controls and restrictions on developers and builders. We will not and cannot solve our traffic problems by ceding more control to government.
Each individual has a moral right to pursue his own values without interference from others. Each of us has a moral right to our own life, liberty, property, and pursuit of happiness. This applies to every individual, gay or straight, white or black, Anglo or Hispanic, male or female.
Houston’s greatness is the result of recognizing this right more than any other city. Our continued greatness requires a renewed commitment to the principles of individual rights. Our continued greatness requires that we recognize and protect individual rights, completely and consistently. This is true in regard to housing, in regard to transportation, and in regard to how we conduct our businesses. It is true in every realm of our lives.