More than fifty Texas governments have passed some form of historic preservation laws. Such laws typically prohibit demolition of a designated structure and mandate that any repairs or additions to a building maintain the architectural integrity of the building.
Some of these ordinances allow for an historic designation to be applied to a building even when the owner objects. However, House Bill 2496 would prohibit local governments from designating a property as an historic landmark unless the owner consents. Preservation Austin is up in arms, arguing that the bill would “fundamentally weaken our ability to save important historic places.”
Richard Kooris, a Preservation Austin board member, said, “In zoning cases, we don’t give the individual property owner right to veto zoning on their property.” In other words, zoning bureaucrats have the final word on land use and the owner’s desires are irrelevant.
In opposing the bill, William Cook, associate general counsel of the National Trust for Historic Preservation, wrote to legislators:
Crafting a landmarks ordinance based on individual landowner preference undermines the integrity of such laws, creates patchwork legal enforcement, and fosters a general public perception that landmarks ordinances are not fairly determined or rationally applied.
Apparently, Cook believes that ignoring the desires of the landowner is somehow fair.
The right to property means the freedom to create, attain, use, keep, trade, and dispose of material values. It means the freedom to do as one chooses with one’s “stuff.” And it is this freedom that preservationists oppose. After all, if property owners voluntarily engaged in historic preservation, laws would not be necessary.
But because some owners choose to use their property differently than others think proper, preservationists are more than happy to use the coercive power of government to criminalize such recalcitrant uses. Preservationists are eager to impose their values on others.
When an individual or group must resort to government coercion to achieve their goals, it is a sure sign that reason is not on their side. They would, as Ayn Rand noted, rather use a club than a syllogism.