Ownership Means Control

Last week, I appeared in court to evict a tenant from one of my rental properties. After confirming that the tenant had not paid the rent, the judge turned to the tenant for an explanation. The tenant then launched into a tirade, alleging that I refused to take care of a plumbing problem. As she was delivering her monologue, I pulled out the receipt for the repair that had been performed. But I never had to show it to the judge.

The judge explained that any complaints that the tenant had were irrelevant to that hearing. The tenant was being sued for non-payment of rent, and that fact had been confirmed. The judge immediately ruled in my favor. The tenant began to argue with the judge, who would have none of it.

“Let me offer you some advice,” the judge said. “If you want to call the shots, get your own property.” In other words, if you want control over a property and its use, you had better be the owner of that property. Ownership means control.

Unfortunately, legislators often fail to recognize this fact. Far too often, they seek to control the use of property through regulations, prohibitions, and dictates. In doing so, they strip the rightful owner of his right to property.

Consider smoking bans as one example. A property owner cannot allow smoking, regardless of his own judgment and desires. He cannot use his property as he chooses and deems best. Consider minimum lot size regulations as another example. In many urban areas, high land prices often make building a single family home on a lot outrageously expensive. But if the developer could put three town homes on that lot, he can spread the land cost over three homes rather than one. And homes become more affordable. However, minimum lot size regulations prevent him from using his property as he thinks best.

The judge was right. My tenant had to learn that lesson the hard way. It is time for legislators to learn that lesson too.