Debates over property rights issues are often filled with claims that reveal a complete misunderstanding of property rights. For example, in a recent article on the Dallas Observer website regarding the regulation of short-term rentals (STRs), a former Arlington council member is quoted: “Whose private property rights are we going to be protecting?”
The question implies that the property rights of STR owners conflict with the property rights of non-STR owners. In truth, there is no such conflict.
The right to property means the freedom to create, attain, use, keep, trade, and dispose of material values. It means that the owner of a house has a moral right to use it as his primary residence, use it as a long-term rental, or use it for a short-term rental.
Opponents of STRs claim that their property rights are violated by STRs. Short-term rentals, they argue, disrupt neighborhoods, and that is a violation of their right to property.
Certainly, the occupants of STRs do violate property rights when they play loud music late at night or otherwise create a nuisance. But this is true whether the nuisance occurs in an STR, a long-term rental, or the perpetrator is the owner of the house.
When we believe that property rights conflict, then every issue turns into a debate over whose rights will be protected and whose rights will be violated. And in the end, legitimate rights are nearly always trampled.
If we want to have a serious and honest discussion about STRs (or any property rights issue), then we must begin by recognizing the fact that rights do not conflict. Until that occurs, these debates will continue to serve as a magnet for noisy gangs eager to impose their values upon an entire community.