A recent opinion piece in the Houston Chronicle asks, “Why can’t Montrose protect its trees?” The simple answer is, Montrose doesn’t own any trees. Montrose is a neighborhood and the trees on private property are owned by the property owner. But this answer isn’t good enough for the author.
The author–Clifford Pugh–laments that “some will howl that property rights should trump everything else.” He doesn’t believe that owners should be free to use their property as they deem best. Instead, he wants the neighborhood–the mob–to dictate to owners what they may or may not do with their property.
If a number of Houston neighborhoods see the merits of preserving trees and homeowners want further protections, why doesn’t the Houston City Council craft an ordinance that pertains to those specific neighborhoods?
In other words, if Pugh can assemble enough like-minded individuals to pressure City Council, they should be allowed to impose their values on the entire neighborhood. The property owner’s desires and values are to be subordinated to those of the neighborhood’s loudest gang.
Pugh goes on to write:
Many residents in my neighborhood and surrounding areas aren’t anti-development. But we are seeking creative ways to prod developers to protect and expand Houston’s tree canopy, because in the long run we believe it’s good for the environment, and it makes good business sense. But right, now that dialogue isn’t taking place.
Pugh wants to penalize developers who act contrary to his desires, and he has the audacity to call this prodding. A robber could similarly claim that waiving a gun in the face of his victim was prodding. Like the robber, Pugh wants to use force to obtain what he can’t achieve through voluntary means.
He then claims that saving trees makes good business sense. Apparently, Pugh knows better than developers what makes good business sense. And since developers are too stupid to listen to him, Pugh will force them to act as he thinks best.