EKIP– Expert Club for Economics and Politics A Different Opinion
Ivelina Y. Petrova
A few days ago, the mayor of the capital's Oborishte district - Vasil Tsolov, nominated by the Reformist Bloc, proposed nationalizing the facades of buildings. According to him, the municipality will be a better steward of the mortar plaster and paint, and thus the central part of the city will acquire a Western European appearance. We see another example of a representative of the Bulgarian "right wing" who offers typically socialist solutions to problems (including the seizure of private property?)
As the owner of part of a building in my area, I find it incomprehensible why someone else would determine what the facade of my home should look like and how it should be maintained. Examples of the failure of the administration in planning, especially in the field of construction, are countless. Here is the place to note how important the concept of private property is. Everyone has the right to use their own resources according to their expectations for maximum satisfaction. Regardless of the result, the individual retains the benefits as well as the losses from their activity, which stimulates their economic efficiency and reduces industriousness. Public ownership deprives the individual of the opportunity to make decisions about allocating their limited resources according to their competing needs. The owners, not bureaucrats, decide what the appearance of buildings should be. Aesthetic preferences are strictly individual and should not be imposed by force.
It would be more correct to consider the problem with the help of economic theory. Friedrich Hayek noted the impossibility of any one (or several) subject(s) having complete knowledge of the economy. There is no way for a ruler to know the exact amount of benefits and costs of regulations on those affected, even if we assume that he aims at the well-being of the community, not personal gain. Individuals make decisions with knowledge specific to their time and place, which can never exist in a sufficiently concentrated form to be used by planners.
Therefore, the reason for so many crumbling buildings is different, which is why /and in almost every case/ the solution cannot be unambiguous. Even financial difficulties are not always the main problem. For example: in my cooperative, several families voluntarily took on the costs of repairing the roof and gutters, because others said they could not afford it. The fact is that now we all benefit from the acquisition, even those who have not paid. This shows that people's behavior is coordinated by market processes and brings their own interest into harmony with the general welfare.
We ask ourselves the following question: "Who will bear the costs of restoring the facades if the municipality becomes the owner?" Of course - the taxpayers. The money of the good owners will go to repair the more negligent ones. This is an endless cycle, because there will always be one more building to be renovated. We should not ignore who will be assigned the construction work. After all, politicians are people and are guided by personal interests and often choose their favorites to carry out public affairs. Who makes the decision and who suffers the consequences of it are usually not the same person.
Unfortunately, the beauty of most buildings in the center of the capital is only a sad breath of the past. I also like classical architecture and support the renovation of buildings. What my aesthetic preferences or those of the municipal officials are, it doesn't matter. Even if I don't like cultural monuments painted in pink-red, I approve of it because I agree with its spirit - everyone should dispose of their possessions as they wish. Let's start taking care of ourselves and our property and stop waiting for someone else to solve our personal problems!
