Proudhon's revenge

Every immigrant's dream was depicted in Woody Allen's 1975 film "Love and Death." Referring to a bedraggled, white-bearded old man from the Russian Empire, Allen's character Boris said, " ... he owned a valuable piece of land. True, it was a small piece, but he carried it with him everywhere he went." And there was the old man, reverently cradling a clump of land in his hands. In the 1800s, French anarchist and philosopher Pierre-Joseph Proudhon declared that "property is theft." Many took this to mean that all property belongs to everyone; that the very concept of private property ownership is criminal. It is for these three words that Proudhon is remembered.

But John Locke, the 17th-century English philosopher, believed that the combination of property ownership and government would provide the coercion necessary to assure an orderly society. Locke's idea of basic human rights included life, liberty and the preservation of estates.

As Thomas Jefferson and Ben Franklin were kicking around some ideas for our new nation, they decided to proclaim life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness as our trilogy of natural rights and the centerpiece of our break with England. While they did not adopt Locke's third inalienable right, neither did they reject it.

'American anthem'

In this regard, not much has changed; ours is still an acquisitive culture. And in the bundle of twigs that represent our property rights, the ability to exclude all others from our property is the most significant twig -- an American anthem.

Because of this, we have expressly rejected Proudhon's collective ownership philosophy and embraced the notion that "every man's home is his castle." No one can say for sure where this comes from, but even country singer Faith Hill acknowledges it in her hit song of the same name.

But Proudhon's words eventually took hold -- insidiously and with a vengeance. And in spite of macho claims to the contrary, every man's home is now his hassle , not his castle.

Among the numerous ways that government can strip you of your property and your perceived rights, the most direct is eminent domain -- the power of the state to exercise its dominion over all the land within its boundaries.

It is refreshingly honest: government decides to take your property for whatever it has determined to be a "public" use and, in short order, you are ejected. You are entitled to "just compensation," but quite frequently it takes years for a court to determine what is "just."

Historic designation is another ugly development in American property law. An appointed committee of your neighbors can tell you what color to paint your house and how to maintain your property. They can order you to leave a derelict structure standing and demand that you spend your hard-earned dollars to bring it up to their standards.

Maybe Elvis slept there or some obscure architect designed it; any number of purely subjective characteristics can draw the attention of your local historic preservation committee. Once your property is targeted, the force of government permits preservation buffs to pursue their hobby with your money.

But the granddaddy of interference with the use of property to which you hold legal title has to be zoning. It dictates how your property can be used, along with determining the height, width, depth, shape, distance from the street, distance from your neighbors and many other minute details.

High court blessing

At the time the U.S. Supreme Court gave zoning advocates the green light in 1926, many American homes were tucked under the wings of industrial plants, which created the desired proximity for immigrants who were required to work very long shifts. But this nearness also placed the workers and their families in constant danger.

And what began as an earnest attempt by enlightened do-gooders in the early 20th century to protect the working poor from the dangers of industry has become just one more weapon that permits the "haves" to discriminate against the "have-nots."

Since the institution of zoning, poor neighborhoods continue to get toxic and undesirable land uses. In Southwestern Pennsylvania, with hundreds of municipalities, some towns are relegated to hosting the most objectionable uses for the benefit of the wealthiest communities.

Worse yet, zoning regulations now assure that the poorer communities will remain poor ad infinitum . Zoning regulations are written in stone; if a bad ordinance was adopted years ago, it is likely to remain in place for decades. This reality has left us with a regulatory scheme gone awry -- now at odds with its initial purpose.

Overzealousness

As chairman of the Pittsburgh Zoning Board for seven years, I presided over hundreds of porch enclosures, backyard swimming pools, fences and air conditioner condensers -- none of which deserved government scrutiny. And most building setback and use issues could have been resolved between neighbors or determined by market pressures.

Among the many sins of modern zoning, one of the most grievous is the treatment of home occupations. Even in the most economically depressed towns, a citizen who can offer only sweat equity and ambition will be prohibited from contributing to the economic recovery of his family and the community.

And the damage is not just local. Every little town across America had a shot at stopping the growth of the telecommunications industry by prohibiting cellular towers.

Many used zoning to do just that, slowing the growth of a nationwide industry at untold cost -- until Congress realized that a viable telecommunication system was more vital to the nation than any single small town's zoning ordinance.

Should modern communities continue to apply regulatory schemes that were designed decades ago to meet legitimate health, safety and welfare concerns that are now adequately addressed in other arenas• We have come a long way in some regards, since it is now generally recognized that the most dangerous land uses do not respect municipal boundaries.

Toxic fumes or particulates, noxious odors and polluted water -- the dangers that were the incentive for zoning -- are now more than adequately addressed by the various states and the federal government. But local zoning ordinances have finally brought Proudhon's words to bear: "property is theft" and what you thought was yours is really owned by the anonymous masses.

So if it's property that you still want, remember the old man in "Love and Death." Find a clump of land, cradle it in your hands and keep it with you always.