Why the hell should someone who opposes the very concept of private property be concerned about property damage?
Those are both personal property. Private property refers to means of production.
Most of the buildings burned out were stores- "means of distribution," perhaps? And then of course the burnt out cars which definitely qualify as "personal property."
The better argument for property destruction (if that's what your interested in making) is that the convenience stores, gas stations, etc are not truly a part of the Ferguson community. They are owned by outsiders and their profits by and large are sucked out of the community, leaving only minimum wage dribblings for community members to survive on. If you accept that framework, destroying the corner store or lighting Taco Bell on fire is an act of resistance, a spontaneous one but still an action which strikes out at [capitalism/white supremacy/your power structure here] in a meaningful way.
Haven't heard a good argument for burning non-government owned cars, though I guess if you're some sort of anarcho-primitivist that would be part of the struggle to reject industrial technology and return our planet to carbon neutral state, or what have you.
