(click on ads for more details)

Smart Growth And Property Rights

by Pat Pending (7-23-01)

I believe in respecting all people.  That includes respecting their property, because property is the fruit of people’s labor and provides the means for their sustenance and enjoyment.  When we speak of “property rights”, we are not speaking of rights that property has over people.  Instead, we are really speaking of human rights, because people’s rights to property are what protect their ability to sustain themselves and their families and to enjoy their lives.  So, instead of calling them “property rights”, we should probably refer to them as the rights of humans to control their own property.

There are many in our society today who do not believe people can be trusted to control their own property.  They do not think that the planning of individuals in society to control their own property can possibly be “smart”.  In fact, they believe that the only planning that matters is a centrally-controlled, force-based type of planning that is now referred to as “smart growth”. 

While the phrase “smart growth” certainly sounds good (after all who could be in favor of “stupid growth” or “stupid shrinkage”?), this so-called “smart growth” is really an attack on property rights and on people.  Instead of respecting the right of people to use and control their own property as long as they are not interfering with the rights of others to do the same, “smart growth” advocates want government to tell people what they can and cannot do with their property.  Some property cannot be developed at all in order to provide needed “green space”.  Some property can only be developed for certain uses or in certain ways.  But all of these government controls over property are a form of theft, because they take away a human’s right to control the property he owns. 

When you buy a tract of land, you may plan to use it for farming until the city moves out to your area and then develop it for housing or shopping centers to support you in your old age without the requirement of backbreaking labor.  But the “smart planners” may have other ideas for you.  When you want to develop the property, they may refuse you permission to make the development, in effect greatly reducing the value of the property and robbing you of your planned means of sustaining yourself in your old age.  However, according to the “smart planners”, that is alright, because they have the greater good of “society as a whole” in mind.  Well, so did Hitler and Stalin.  Any society that is willing to steal people’s property is not following a path that will lead to the so-called “greater good”. 

But, you may say, what if the property owner decided to turn his property into an eyesore, a blight on the neighborhood?  There are several answers to that question.  First, the owner of a piece of property has every reason to maintain his property in good condition, because that is how he maintains the value of his property.  Creating an eyesore reduces the value of the owner’s property, which is not in his own best interest and therefore is not likely to be done.  However, if the property owner chose to use his property in a way that his neighbors did not like, they could certainly offer to buy it from him so they can control its use.  For example, if they want their children to have a park to play in, they could buy the property and turn it into a park, but they should not be able to steal the property to use it as a park at the expense of the owner. 

Furthermore, if a property owner uses his property in a manner that creates sounds, odors, fumes, or run-off that prevent his neighbors from being able to enjoy the use of their property, he would be creating a nuisance, and his neighbors could successfully sue to stop him. 

When property rights are respected, people are free to put any kinds of restrictions they want on their own property.  So, for example, a developer could buy a tract of land and voluntarily create restrictive covenants that control the type of development that can be done on that property.  Then, the people who buy the property will be bound by those restrictions.  This is frequently done in housing developments and industrial parks to maintain a particular style in the neighborhood.  Also, neighbors could join together and voluntarily agree to certain property restrictions on their own properties if they feel it is in their own best interest.  All of this can be done without any need for the heavy hand of the “smart growth” people. 

Many places have thrived without government planning.  Houston is an example of a large city that has grown and developed without zoning or other “smart planning” folks.  Houston has beautiful, upscale neighborhoods, moderately-priced neighborhoods, parks, and all the amenities that any other thriving area would enjoy.  Other cities are notorious for the corruption associated with their zoning agencies.  In those cities, property owners or developers know that, in order to be able to do what they want on their own land, they must first grease some palms.  Zoning and other “smart growth” government control of land use policies encourage this type of corruption by putting the control over land in the hands of someone other than the person who owns it.  Does this type of corruption and theft seem “smart” to you?