I have an article in Discourse Magazine about the downsides to “historic preservation” laws, which often impose Byzantine bureaucratic rules on people who just want to live in their homes, and which sometimes impose crushing—and unconstitutional—takings of private property without compensation. Excerpt:
Preserving the past is a worthy goal. But like all worthy goals, it also represents a tradeoff, with costs and benefits that must be weighed in the balance. Ignoring property rights, the role of incentives and the principles of due process—which forbid vague laws—blinds both politicians and voters to the cost side of the equation. That tends to benefit the politically powerful at the expense of less influential property owners—and of consumers who would benefit from new and more innovative construction. Without legal checks and balances, historic preservation cannot only stifle new building and improvement, but even obstruct the goal of preservation itself.
Comments policy