A Stitch in Haste

To review: The only incursion upon property rights worse than private-for-private eminent domain (such as that shamefully sanctioned by Kelo v. New London) is landmarks preservation. At least with eminent domain, a soon-to-be-former property owner receives “just compensation” for the incursion upon his rights by the majoritarian mob.

With historic preservation, however, the mob doesn’t even bother to provide compensation, “just” or otherwise. They just seize the property outright by forbidding you to actually do anything with it, at least not without their permission. And the one thing that you will never, ever, receive permission for is to demolish your structure and put the land to better use.

Of course, a moral mob in a civilized society would never engage in such shameless curbside robbery. If an individual or a group of individuals wanted to “preserve” your property, then they would simply make it their property, by purchasing it from you in a free and voluntary exchange. But as thousands of years of history show us, the most certain oxymoron in human affairs is “moral mob” —

Since 1962, Elaine and Hyman Weitzen have been happily ensconced in a white stucco house at 65th Street and Lexington Avenue.
…
Ms. Weitzen’s building, which is known as the Parge House for its whimsical exterior “parging,” or designs in plaster … lies just outside the Upper East Side Historic District, which covers about 57 blocks total from Fifth Avenue to Third Avenue, between 59th and 79th Streets.

In July 2007, the preservation group Friends of the Upper East Side Historic Districts submitted a proposal to the city to add to the district 197 buildings — including the Parge House — along Lexington Avenue and side streets from 60th to 65th Street and from 72nd to 75th Street. The city’s Landmarks Preservation Commission is studying the proposal.

Two hundred more buildings on top of 57 Manhattan blocks — all somehow “historic”? Preposterous. But then again, when you’re a self-appointed “community activist” who needs to perpetually justify your activism, you will never — never — stop finding buildings to preserve to satisfy your addiction to warm fuzzy feelings (generated at the expense of the rights of others).

More:

Fredric Bell, the executive director of the New York chapter of the American Institute of Architects, said the expansion would preserve historic buildings but might also inhibit worthwhile development. “There will be projects that won’t happen,” Mr. Bell said. “Will it slow things down? Yes.”

As an architect might say, that’s an impressively built argument that rests on a very shaky foundation. The issue isn’t whether historic preservation “goes too far” or “isn’t worth the opportunity cost” of foregone projects. The issue is why anyone other than the property owner should get to ask those questions in the first place. “Historic” — by what standard? “Worthwhile” — to whom? Politicians? Self-appointed “community activists”? The majoritarian mob?

Why?

Kip’s Law: Every advocate of central planning always — always — envisions himself as the central planner.

Previously:
–Can a “Rickety Shack” be an “Historic Landmark”?
–More on Landmarks Preservation
–A Property Rights Saga in the East Village

Filed under: Kip's Law, Law, New York City & State, Property Rights