Preservation: balancing personal choice with property rights
‘œNo person shall… be deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor shall private property be taken for public use, without just compensation.’ ‘“ Fifth Amendment to the U.S. Constitution
This summer there has been hot public debate in my community about the future of a medical office building. It’s not just any office building. It’s been deemed as having historical significance because it was designed in 1963 by Richard Neutra, one of modernism’s most important architects.
The building’s owner had submitted permits for a new building project on the site which meant the Mariners Medical Arts Center was destined for the wrecking ball:
But after local architects and community members protested the project, city officials looked into documents referencing the building and new construction. After doing so, they decided to put a suspension on the building permit.
They cited the California Environmental Quality Act that requires a study to determine environmental effects. Historical significance (due to its noted architect) is included in this category.
Architecturally speaking, the building is spectacular and representative of the pure, clean look of the period when it comes to design and construction. That said, the building in its current state is a mess. It’s still in use, but in dire need of some TLC.
So what does this have to do with money? Well, quite a bit. The building owners can’t do what they want with their building. Yet at the same time, it’s a shame that a piece of history will be destroyed if they’re allowed to follow through on their project.
What is the balance between personal choice, property rights and all the good that architectural preservation represents?
Let me use a different scenario to make a similar point. Remember when Bill here questioned government regulation as it relates to consumers being required to switch from incandescent light bulbs to compact fluorescents (CFLs):
As a gay man, I’m very sensitive to government attempts to micromanage my life. I don’t want the government telling me how I should live – and that includes who I can sleep with, what sex toys I can buy, what goals I can save for, and what light bulbs I can use. I want the freedom to make my own choices, and I want to let other people make their own. Light bulb laws are a heavy-handed way of achieving a very narrow goal, and they remove individual choice and values from the equation. The cultural cost of light bulb laws is that they reinforce the idea that it’s ok for the government to make personal decisions for us.
On another post I asked him how we balance the reach of government with rules. Should there be one standard for business and another when it applies to our personal freedom of choice? He replied:
As a libertarian, I usually draw a line based on property rights. The basic principle is that an individual should be able to do what he wants with his own property, on his own property, so long as he does not infringe on the property of others in so doing. As applied to my Light Bulb Laws post, this means that if I’m not polluting with my incandescent bulbs, I should be able to use them. This was the also underlying principle for my argument that power generation should have cleanup costs built-in, because otherwise the pollution is a violation of property rights regardless of what kind of light bulb you’re using. If we all had to pay for our pollution in the first place, it would not only encourage use of CFLs, but it would make clean power more economically viable. That’s why I see the CFL laws as short-sighted and ultimately rather pointless – they do nothing about the million other ways to waste power, while restricting individual choice.
Here’s another example. Think back to the landscaping company that refused to perform work for a gay couple building a home in Houston. Do business owners have the right to choose to do business with anyone they like even if it is discriminatory?
I’m all for preserving personal choice. After all, personal freedom is one of the great things about this country. But it’s a tricky issue in my opinion’¦ especially when restricting choice impacts our pocketbooks.
Bill concludes his light bulb post with this thought:
If we leave these decisions in the hands of consumers, we reinforce the notion that this is a country of individuals with different values, and that it’s ok for people to choose different approaches to solving problems. If we take these decisions away from individuals, we can look forward to the day when someone lobbies for a ban on tampons and wants to force women to use the Mooncup to reduce waste.
So what do you think? I’m looking for your views about property rights, rather than tampon use, but I welcome all comments below.
You can probably guess my opinion from the extensive quotes above – the owner should be able to level that building. If the “local architects and community members” value the building so much, they should buy it. If they don’t, then they obviously don’t value it as highly as the current owner.
Look at Vera Coking. Developers repeatedly tried to buy her Atlantic City home, but she refused to sell. Eventually the city took her house under eminent domain so that Donald Trump could use the property, but the courts eventually sided with Coking. She still lives in her home, right next to the Trump Plaza Hotel.
It doesn’t matter if it’s eminent domain, as in the Coking case, or the California Environmental Quality Act, as in this case. The underlying principle is the same – the government uses an unpredictable, arbitrary law to force you to do things with your property against your will. It’s wrong when the victim is a widow, and it’s still wrong when the victim is a real estate company.
If Donald Trump wants to level Vera Coking’s house, he should have to offer her a price she’ll agree to, no matter how stubborn she wants to be about it. If local architects and community members want to preserve an old building, they should be under the same constraint. Of course, they would have the advantage of dealing with a real estate company who would probably give them a fair price, as opposed to a retired widow who would likely be somewhat less reasonable about leaving her home of over 35 years.
I think that one of the problems we have as a culture in discussing these issues is that the rhetoric of “property rights” has come to mean, popularly, something like “the right to do whatever you want to with your stuff.”
But it never really meant that.
You don’t have the right to build a nuclear waste dump in your back yard. In most incorporated cities, you don’t have the right to shoot guns or firecrackers in your back yard either. In many homeowner-association affiliated developments, you don’t even have the right to put a sign for your preferred political candidate, or advertising your home for sale, in your yard. Furthermore, your neighbors have potentially competing rights to the quiet enjoyment of their property — which is why they can call the police on your wild party. Especially in the western states, mineral rights and water rights may be sold independently of the physical right to the space on top of a piece of land.
Life in a community, particularly a democratically governed community, involves negotiation of the exact parameters of all these kinds of property rights. And while everyone is sympathetic to the plight of poor widow so-and-so as against tasteless capitalist Donald Trump, most of these debates are more difficult and more subtle.
Don’t even get me started on Intellectual Property. 🙂
Bill: I always enjoy hearing your perspective and wish I could solve the problem as you suggest by buying the building with my concerned neighbors. After all, it is a beauty and it would be a shame to see it leveled. This makes me wonder if there are REITs that focus solely on historic properties.
Liza: I’m torn on topic. On one hand, I see the value in Historic Preservation Overlay Zones (HPOZs) but on the other hand, I see Bill’s point too. Striking the balance is the tricky part.
I don’t think that the rights of the individual always trump the rights of the community. Some things aren’t really ours to own and destroy. But then I live in the UK and our restrictive planning laws are generally popular. I guess one solution doesn’t fit all.