Jump to content
Objectivism Online Forum

Town Hearing

Rate this topic


mweiss

Recommended Posts

Well, let's leave the discussion of property rights out of this topic. As your statements make clear, the true objective of zoning laws is to keep the "riff-raff" out.

Whle that may be the demonstrated case in some communities, I would find it shamefully discriminating.

I think the intent of zoning should be to ensure, to the best of ability, that those who buy into a community can reasonably expect it to be developed and used in a manner consistent with what they were sold from the start.

I think zoning is a part of community planning. As such, if someone wants anarchy, they can go live out on Montana and do as they please. For the rest of us, we don't want to have to be suing our neighbors every time some wants to put a tire shop next to the rest of our residences, or pack too many homes in a small area, as this builder wants to do.

In this case, the builder got the property for a song, just the back taxes. A bargain, around here. The former owner was so stressed that she died during the run up to the eviction. A tragic ending to more than a century of history on this mountain.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Replies 71
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

It's interesting how black-and-white and utterly dogmatic some of the responses here have been in their unrealistic application of objectivist principles to this situation. A lot of the responses address theory, not reality. Others have been good attempts to deal with the expectations that a property owner has based on the terms by which he acquired the property and what he can expect in terms of "quiet enjoyment" of his property.

Before I owned property and dealt first-hand with the legalities of property, and the legal/regulatory system (particularly labor law) in general as a supervisor I used to be very dogmatic in the application of my philosophy to real life. Particularly when I was a young journalist and I'd see business owners and homeowners subjected to irrational or immoral limitations, I used to feel a black-and-white outrage and I wondered why they didn't fight back on the simple grounds that whatever the government was doing was just plain wrong, and therefore the city planners/regulators should get off their back.

After one deals with these kinds of issues a few times and obtains goods and services under a set of expectations that is defined partially by the realities of our legal system, one learns how to apply objectivism in a practical, rather than theoretical manner. To be sure, most government intervention is immoral or illogical. Even so, if one is going to get what one wants, one has to learn to work within the system, and do so in such a way that one can still sleep at night. Making suggestions like that city planners should be prosecuted for violating a property owner's rights and that scheduled public hearings be canceled on grounds they are irrelevant are a joke because it'll get one laughed right out of the process, and result in one's interests being unrepresented.

With regard to zoning and rights to shared benefits such as water, views, etc. it's important to consider that a property owner acquires the property under certain terms. And a property owner has the right to enforce those terms if necessary to defend his investment. It's well and good to say that we don't have a right to this or a right to that, but factors such as zoning, viewshed protections, water rights, etc. have an effect on property values. And one buys into that when one acquires a property - whether one likes it or not.

I had to deal with this recently when a subdivision of a roughly 1.7 acre lot was going to be broken up to add two homes that would be across the street from mine. I had no problem with the property owner wanting to build homes or sell the newly created lots to sell for future development, and no problem with her cutting oaks down to do it (this is where I disagreed with some of my neighbors). When this went before my county's subdivision board, I and fellow homeowners attempted to have the government protect our property rights, which to some extent it did, but shafted us in other ways.

County planners required her to ensure that drainage from her property does not affect ours or use our retention basin (we'll see how well that works in practice versus theory) and that she widen the street to accommodate the added traffic. We wanted the county to require she join our homeowners association because our handful of houses are on a street that is privately owned and maintained - though there is a public easement allowing anyone to use it, a condition the county imposed on the development. So this lady is profiting from the investment by the developer who built our homes and installed the streets to go with them. That investment became ours when we bought our homes from the developer and accepted the responsibility of maintaining the streets because we own what amounts to shares in our association.

Being that the subdivision board is made up of government employees (note I don't call them workers) in planning and other bureaucratic positions, and therefore tending to be mediocre and sub-par for private-sector work, the board totally ignored our demand that the properties be included in our association so that the homeowners could help contribute to the streets they'll use, and that the property owner pay a lump sum to buy in to our association (shares essentially). I wouldn't expect someone who is paid by the government to necessarily understand what an investment is.

We'll probably end up having to negotiate with the property owner because the county is requiring her purchasers to drive around the block and not use our street to get to their homes (yeah right), and no doubt she won't want us discouraging home buyers by sharing this and other adverse information with visiting real estate agents and potential buyers.

The whole experience and the sheer mediocrity and irrationality of the subdivision board and county staff (they made a legal decision while county counsel was in the bathroom because they didn't want to wait and they were tired of hearing from us) left me outraged and shocked at how stupid and incompetent they were - even though I shouldn't be surprised.

Sure, the whole process was lame, illogical and immoral (and I think it's stupid that according to the planning file the property owner had paid the government nearly $10k before even turning a shovel) but I was loathe to summarily dismiss participating in it because I would have left my property defenseless. The price of my property when I bought it, and the market value when I sell it, is based on a certain set of expectations. And I have a right to attempt to see that those expectations are met.

By the way, this is in California, where you can't break wind without getting an emissions permit and hiring a consultant to draft an environmental impact report. Meanwhile, you die waiting for permission to pass gas.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

one learns how to apply objectivism in a practical, rather than theoretical manner.

There is no Practical -vs- Theoretical dichotomy, stop calling yourself an Objectivist or at least implying that you "apply the philosophy" to your life.

How's that for dogmatic...

The price of my property when I bought it, and the market value when I sell it, is based on a certain set of expectations. And I have a right to attempt to see that those expectations are met.

So you have a right to force other people to make sure the value of your property on a free market stays a certain value?? Is that really a "free" market?? Or would you rather it weren't so that you could make investments and avoid risks by using the govt to force the value of your property up?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

There is no Practical -vs- Theoretical dichotomy, stop calling yourself an Objectivist or at least implying that you "apply the philosophy" to your life.

How's that for dogmatic...

So you have a right to force other people to make sure the value of your property on a free market stays a certain value?? Is that really a "free" market?? Or would you rather it weren't so that you could make investments and avoid risks by using the govt to force the value of your property up?

I consider some of the suggestions here theoretical because they call for actions that are so unrealistic, and in some cases outlandish, that they are merely academic in their value. An example of this is a call earlier here for the town hearing process to be reversed so the property owner can do whatever he wants and for planning officials to be prosecuted for violating the property owners rights. That's so outlandish that it borders on the absurd. It's fantasy.

I did not suggest that I have a right to force other people to make sure my property value stays a certain value. I have a right to seek enforcement of certain legal provisions that were in place when I acquired my property because those provisions affected the value of my property at the time of acquisition. When I made the reference to investment, it was with regard to what we received in return for the purchase price of our homes. In our case, we are a huddle of 10 homes that are on streets the county would not accept, but nonetheless during the planning review of our development, required (or perhaps the developer agreed to, regardless) that each property give up an easement for public passage along that pavement. The streets in front of each house are owned by each homeowner, but when we bought our homes we did so with restrictions on the use of that pavement in front of house per the CC&Rs (which were imposed by the county). A similar situation exists with regards to a drainage basin. The association, of which each homeowner is a board member, owns the basin and must maintain it. That is the investment I refer to. I have a right to seek that the government that imposed the conditions on my investment (which I acquired from the developer up on acquisition) be enforced because if I have to live up my end of the bargain, so does the government that imposed that bargain.

If this were a publicly held road (note I don't say publicly owned) and a publicly held basin, I wouldn't even be having much of this conversation. But I have a right to try to ensure that the government does not approve a development that would send water, debris and other runoff down a slope onto my property for me to clean up.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Antonio, if you're going to object to an opinion expressed in this thread, it would help to know which one you object to and what your objection is. Right now, you've accused some people (which ones?) of being dogmatic (how?). Some quotes would be nice.

I think it was quite clear as to whom Antonio was referring to in his comments about dogmatic application of Objectivism.

This is a beef I have with the college students who read a couple of Ayn Rand books and right away proclaim themselves to be Objectivists. They, unlike Miss Rand, as I knew her in the 1960s, are arrogant and so sure of their opinions as being "Objectivist".

As I comb through the Internet in the present day, I find there are "factions" of people who claim to be "the true Objectivists" and the major camps are divided between the Brandens and ARI, and in each camp are subdivisions which each proclaim certain things as absolute truths, when in fact, they are dogmatic applications of principles, taken in a "sterile" hypothetical application.

Back in my day, we who studied Objectivism referred to ourselves as "students of Objectivism". That is, we always considered oruselves to be learning. The masters of that time were Rand and Branden, though Branden made an error in one lecture in the late '60s and Rand interrupted him in front of the audience and corrected him. But we always kept the attitude that we were learning and they were the teachers of this philosophy. The arrogance I see here among a few of the contributors on this particular forum is somewhat disturbing.

Indeed, there are practical applications of Objectivism. I never believed it to be an anarchist's philosophy, as some of the preposterous comments here have implied. In a society, there are laws designed so that large groups of people can live in close proximity with the least amount of friction. One is free to live in society or to choose to live out in the boondocks. Of course, when society starts to spread into the boondocks, a few of use 'old timers' start to find good reasons to object.

In a rational society, it is nice to believe that your neighbor is not goind to build a coal mine next door, or build a tire shop or other noisy industrial operation in an area that is being used as a purely residentical community.

For the 'wise guys' here, I would like to play the devil's advocate and see how you feel about living next to Section 8 housing, or a polluting rubber factory that pops up next to your lovely dream home. And while you're scraping together the cash to hire an attorney to start suiing the rubber factory owner, a grain elevator is built on the lot opposite you and is blocking out your afternoon sun. Now you have to sue that owner as well. And now you're broke and you've been distracted from your primary activities as a producer of your own wealth because you've had to administer law ex post facto instead of going with a community that respects laws based on prior restraint.

In a zoned society, it is understood that certain activities are detrimental to residential living and as such are proscribed ahead of time. You buy land and build a home with that understanding, if the land is part of an established community with posted regulations out in the open with no surprises. This is better than anarchy where you buy land, and a year later some new landowner next to you decides to do something disruptive to your well being and you have to invest time, money and energy to fight him in court. That nearly amounts to feudalism, but with the battles taking place in courtrooms. Absurd.

People, realize this: Objectivism is not anarchy!

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I think it was quite clear as to whom Antonio was referring to in his comments about dogmatic application of Objectivism.

If you think it was quite clear, then kindly provide the information I asked for.

In a zoned society, it is understood that certain activities are detrimental to residential living and as such are proscribed ahead of time. You buy land and build a home with that understanding, if the land is part of an established community with posted regulations out in the open with no surprises.

For the third time, zoning is neither necessary nor proper. All of this can be handled by contract, as was stated several times in this thread. There would be no difference in the kinds of communities that could be created, but a very large difference in the fact that the government is not made the actual controller of the property and the landowners would retain this right.

Yet so far you have utterly failed to respond to this charge. It's like you're not even reading what I have written. I suggest that you re-read my posts in this thread or, if you haven't read them at all, read them.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

If you think it was quite clear, then kindly provide the information I asked for.

For the third time, zoning is neither necessary nor proper. All of this can be handled by contract, as was stated several times in this thread. There would be no difference in the kinds of communities that could be created, but a very large difference in the fact that the government is not made the actual controller of the property and the landowners would retain this right.

Yet so far you have utterly failed to respond to this charge. It's like you're not even reading what I have written. I suggest that you re-read my posts in this thread or, if you haven't read them at all, read them.

Indeed, it can be handled by contract. That would be great. But the point here is that under our system of law is that it is handled by statute. As a result, folks like us who are students of Objectivism have to figure out how to live within those confines and still be able to sleep at night knowing that we are doing the right thing in order to protect our lives and property and investments. We may not like it, but we have to deal with it. We here who understand reality know we just can't wish it away. Our philosophy is not fiat.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I only skimmed the entries in this thread, so I apologize in advance if I have misconstrued the argument (I will take no offense if you let me know), but I did want to throw my "two cents" in on this issue.

It is important to carefully distinguish what is right in a mixed economy like ours. Government both acts as protector of our rights, to a degree, and as violator of our rights, to a degree. Zoning is an example of that. Zoning is a "package deal" ordinance. On the legitimate side, it can occasionally function as a protector of property rights, to the degree it forbids actions that violate one's property right. For example, if it outlaws a smelly hog farm in a residential area, it is protecting rights. The smells from the hog farm would violate a homeowner's right to peaceably use and enjoy his property. The interesting thing, though, is that it is completely unnecessary to use zoning laws for such a fundamental protection of rights. A correctly framed constitutional & statutory definition and protection of the right to property, combined with access to the court system to resolve torts, will take care of property rights infringements. Zoning laws are completely unnecessary for this purpose.

This brings me to the second use, the true use of zoning: protecting incumbent property owners from encroachment by new property owners. This use of zoning occurs every day. Where I live in New York City, a zoning ordinance is passed to protect some councilman's views of the Empire State Building from his apartment window. To "protect" "his" view, property owners are forbidden from constructing buildings above a certain height. In suburban and rural areas around the country, zoning laws are similarly used as a weapon against future neighbors. For example, in parts of Westchester County, New York, minimum housing lot sizes are set at two acres. This ensures that only the very wealthy can afford to buy homes in that neighborhood. The law keeps out the "riff raff" and ensures that only the "right kind" of people move into the neighborhood.

Because rational statutes and the courts can address true violations of property rights, there is no legitimate basis whatsoever for zoning laws in my opinion. All of them should be repealed.

However, in today's mixed economy, zoning laws sometimes are used to protect legitimate property interests. If that is the case, I see no problem with invoking that law to protect one's property, if that is the only legal recourse available to an individual. However, I would never confuse using a zoning law in this (limited) manner with somehow concluding that zoning laws are moral. They are not. If government has failed to protect your property right through legitimate means, you use the means available to you to accomplish your goal. But it does not follow that one should advocate zoning restrictions. Rather, one should oppose them, and advocate a laissez faire society.

On this last point, consider circumstances where it is moral to accept money from the government. Such circumstances are inevitable and unavoidable for most people in a mixed economy. But, does accepting government money in those circumstances make one into an advocate of a mixed or socialist economy? Of course not. One can keep the taking and the talking separate, and not be a hypocrite.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

For example, if it outlaws a smelly hog farm in a residential area, it is protecting rights. The smells from the hog farm would violate a homeowner's right to peaceably use and enjoy his property. The interesting thing, though, is that it is completely unnecessary to use zoning laws for such a fundamental protection of rights. A correctly framed constitutional & statutory definition and protection of the right to property, combined with access to the court system to resolve torts, will take care of property rights infringements.
The problem is that this presumes a well-defined understanding of what such ephemeral property rights are. It is pretty easy to construct a long list of potential rights violations such as the right to not have to:

Smell pig poo (ugh, 4 years in Urbana IL and lemme say, pig poo is one of the least attractive fecal forms on the planet)

Smell horse poo (eh, de gustibus)

Smell beer brewing (my wife hates it)

Smell the neighbor's barbecue

Hear jets taking off

Hear live Pink Floyd concerts

Hear the stinking Pops orchestra on summer nights

Hear the neighbor's stupid Bond theme song ring tone

See any house painted with naked ladies

See any house painted pink

See any house painted any way other than "white with black trim"

Now you can appeal to vague notions such as "prevaling values of the community", but do bear in mind that unlike actual property rights, property-enjoyments entitlements will have to be highly variable, subject to the shifting values of the time, if they are not actually hard-coded somewhere. This is unlike real property rights, where modulo surveying or recording problems, there is no issue having to do with whether what you own today is the same is what you owned 20 or 50 years ago.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I think it was quite clear as to whom Antonio was referring to in his comments about dogmatic application of Objectivism.

This is a beef I have with the college students who read a couple of Ayn Rand books and right away proclaim themselves to be Objectivists. They, unlike Miss Rand, as I knew her in the 1960s, are arrogant and so sure of their opinions as being "Objectivist".

As I comb through the Internet in the present day, I find there are "factions" of people who claim to be "the true Objectivists" and the major camps are divided between the Brandens and ARI, and in each camp are subdivisions which each proclaim certain things as absolute truths, when in fact, they are dogmatic applications of principles, taken in a "sterile" hypothetical application.

Back in my day, we who studied Objectivism referred to ourselves as "students of Objectivism". That is, we always considered oruselves to be learning. The masters of that time were Rand and Branden, though Branden made an error in one lecture in the late '60s and Rand interrupted him in front of the audience and corrected him. But we always kept the attitude that we were learning and they were the teachers of this philosophy. The arrogance I see here among a few of the contributors on this particular forum is somewhat disturbing.

Indeed, there are practical applications of Objectivism. I never believed it to be an anarchist's philosophy, as some of the preposterous comments here have implied. In a society, there are laws designed so that large groups of people can live in close proximity with the least amount of friction. One is free to live in society or to choose to live out in the boondocks. Of course, when society starts to spread into the boondocks, a few of use 'old timers' start to find good reasons to object.

In a rational society, it is nice to believe that your neighbor is not goind to build a coal mine next door, or build a tire shop or other noisy industrial operation in an area that is being used as a purely residentical community.

Thank you Mark for your comment. I know what it is like to be dogmatic and imagine my own hypothetical world where life is like Galt's Gulch and everyone behaves rationally. Unlike many who are introduced to Rand through her nonfiction, I was introduced through her nonfiction writings, which gave me what amounts to an intellectual rush because they affirmed almost everything that I believed. I dare say I was almost evangelical about my steadfast beliefs in Objectivism, to the degree that my intellectual rush turned into a huge intellectual anger and sometimes even despair.

Then after having children, investing, going into business journalism, owning property and other life changes that came with getting older (I'm only 37 so don't push it - I still have a lot to learn), I gradually learned how to live with myself in a world that disagrees with most of what I believe. It's a case of "If only I knew back then what I know now ..."

It is not easy. The fact is that I have to interact with a non-Objectivist world without compromising my values. In the example I gave, it meant that at a public county hearing I stated clearly, for what little it was worth, that unlike my neighbors I am not opposed to my neighboring property owner subdividing and developing her land. I merely wanted to ensure that the same laws that grant me some benefits, and take away others, were being applied in a way that was fair and would not harm me.

Again, it's not easy. The easy thing for me would have been to throw the baby out with the bathwater and tell my fellow homeowner association members "no thanks," and just rationalize it by arguing that I have no business in this because the government is irrational and immoral. But the fact in this case was that this subdividing property owner was going to profit off of our investment. And I needed to protect it.

It was well said that laws protect the rights of some while denying the rights of others. That happened in this case, only the county went further and conferred benefits to this property owner at our expense. I remind the reporters who work for me that it's important we consider that zoning laws create a situation where the government decides who wins and who loses by drawing lines. One loses when one's on the wrong side of the line.

Because sacrifice is immoral it's necessary that one ensures he doesn't end up a loser by legislative or regulatory fiat. It is merely defending one's life, liberty, property and pursuit of happiness from the initiation of force by others. That's the hallmark of how I apply Objectivism in a practical manner in my life.

Edited by Antonio
Link to comment
Share on other sites

However, in today's mixed economy, zoning laws sometimes are used to protect legitimate property interests. If that is the case, I see no problem with invoking that law to protect one's property, if that is the only legal recourse available to an individual. However, I would never confuse using a zoning law in this (limited) manner with somehow concluding that zoning laws are moral. They are not. If government has failed to protect your property right through legitimate means, you use the means available to you to accomplish your goal. But it does not follow that one should advocate zoning restrictions. Rather, one should oppose them, and advocate a laissez faire society.

Precisely. Notice the part of Mweiss' actions I am critical of is where he says, openly, to the city council that:

Zoning is morally correct, just as government is.

This is indefensible. It is one thing to call for zoning laws to protect one's rights. I don't have a problem with that. (try to recognize, Antonio, that in this regard you are throttling a straw man!) But to call them "morally correct" is the sanction of the victim. Antonio, surely you agree?

Edited by Inspector
Link to comment
Share on other sites

The problem is that this presumes a well-defined understanding of what such ephemeral property rights are. It is pretty easy to construct a long list of potential rights violations such as the right to not have to:

Smell pig poo (ugh, 4 years in Urbana IL and lemme say, pig poo is one of the least attractive fecal forms on the planet)

Smell horse poo (eh, de gustibus)

Smell beer brewing (my wife hates it)

Smell the neighbor's barbecue

Hear jets taking off

Hear live Pink Floyd concerts

Hear the stinking Pops orchestra on summer nights

Hear the neighbor's stupid Bond theme song ring tone

See any house painted with naked ladies

See any house painted pink

See any house painted any way other than "white with black trim"

Now you can appeal to vague notions such as "prevaling values of the community", but do bear in mind that unlike actual property rights, property-enjoyments entitlements will have to be highly variable, subject to the shifting values of the time, if they are not actually hard-coded somewhere. This is unlike real property rights, where modulo surveying or recording problems, there is no issue having to do with whether what you own today is the same is what you owned 20 or 50 years ago.

All of these issues are dealt with by statute or by the common law. The common law is quite an incredible body of case law that is the result of courts deciding thousands of issues like this going all the way back to the days of the Roman Empire. (If there is a lawyer reading this, please correct me if I am wrong here.) Courts and legislatures will continue to decide these disputes as they arise in the future. Trust me, whatever infringements that exist today, new ones will arise in the future as technology advances, new forms of property are delineated, and people simply crowd each other more.

"Zoning laws" are a completely inappropriate and unnecessary way of handling these types of matters. It is my understanding that America essentially had no zoning laws until the 20th century, when the first one was passed here in New York City. The impetus for it was the construction of the "colossal" Equitable Building on lower Broadway. Today, if you pass by that building, you will see buildings much larger than it on nearby blocks (including until 2001, the World Trade Center, which was about 3 blocks away). Yesterday's colossus blocking out the light and air is just today's moderately large building. Of course, that didn't stop the city for several decades from forcing new buildings going up to have an ugly, squat, pancaked shape, until the zoning rules were loosened.

Houston is a city without zoning laws, or they may have passed some modest first ones just a few years ago. Go to Houston; it is a great, vibrant city.

The problem with zoning laws is that it is a blunt instrument that violates the rights of people to use their property the way they want to. It punishes property owners a priori, before any violation has occurred. Common law and statutory law that is adjudged to be constitutional (i.e., does not violate property rights) can adjudicate those situations that arise where one person's actions truly violates the property rights of another. Those situations cannot be enumerated beforehand by zoning sections of a city for this use or that use. Such a power to tell property owners what they can do with their property can only be used to abuse in the manner I described. That it happens to occasionally protect some property owners today is a rare and accidental benefit of zoning laws, but it does not mean we should have them. The power to zone is the power to abuse the rights of property owners.

Edited by Galileo Blogs
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Precisely. Notice the part of Mweiss' actions I am critical of is where he says, openly, to the city council that:

This is indefensible. It is one thing to call for zoning laws to protect one's rights. I don't have a problem with that. (try to recognize, Antonio, that in this regard you are throttling a straw man!) But to call them "morally correct" is the sanction of the victim. Antonio, surely you agree?

I never said I agree with zoning laws nor called them "morally correct" as you say I did. In fact, I said the opposite.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The common law is quite an incredible body of case law that is the result of courts deciding thousands of issues like this going all the way back to the days of the Roman Empire.
Well, actually the common law was essentially a Norman invention, arising from the fact that the invaders trashed Saxon law but needed something. It is the practice of "doing what the locals do", without formalization, and it depends on wise deciders who look at the merits of the case and decide what would be just. At a certain point, before the Statutes of Westminster, statutes were written by, I think, judges and clerics and the like, which stated some of these practices, and that is the common law. This is in contrast to the Roman system, which basically abjures the concept of case law, and which prevails in countries not descended from England. So...
All of these issues are dealt with by statute or by the common law
Under a "prevaling values" common law type account, appeal has to be made to something outside of objectively-stated law, i.e. the appeal to the fact that one man's acts prevent another from "enjoying" his property. In my opinion, the subjective common law approach is the second-worst form of law imaginable. Fortunately, that approach is being more and more supplanted with a statutory approach. The statutory approach includes zoning laws. So I'm puzzled, since you seem to be simultaneously applauding and condemning zoning laws. The non-statutory means of getting rid of a smelly hog farm is based on the subjective credo of "enjoyment" which is distinct from getting rid of a neighbor who barbecues by the probability that some community will be offended by one act and not the other. The statutory approach involves zoning laws, which says that hog farms are not allowed in certain neighborhoods although hog farms are not totally outlawed.

Now if your objection is simply that zoning laws are also like pollution laws (in being preemptive) -- as suggested by your comment that "It punishes property owners a priori", then we are in agreement. The problem is not zoning laws per se, but preemptive law, which is a broader category.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The law cannot state in advance all forms of how one man can hurt another or his property. New situations arise because of new technologies, customs, etc. For example, before the advent of stereo equipment, it was impossible to blast your neighbor with loud rap music. Once that became possible, the aggrieved party simply has to establish in a court of law that he was harmed in some way, and request appropriate redress. The important thing is that the law objectively define the meaning of harm as a principle, so that it can encompass new situations not currently specified in specific statutes.

As to whether harms through noise or smells, etc., are not objective, they are. It is objectively true that noise beyond a certain level or smells of a certain kind and persistence are objectively a nuisance that prevents one from enjoying one's person and property. The job of the legislature through statute and/or the courts through specific cases resolving lawsuits, is to decide what those specific thresholds are. A lot of those thresholds may be highly specific to the circumstances involved, and are only definable for specific cases. The body of those cases forms precedent which helps inform and guide future judges in future lawsuits. That is what I was trying to get at by saying "common law," which I obviously know little about. Nevertheless, the principle of that form of adjudication is a sound one, for the simple reason that not every harm can be defined in advance.

Regarding the objectivity of harming a neighbor in seemingly nebulous areas such as smells or noise, setting such standards is no less rational than setting the appropriate penalty for a crime. That a thief should be punished is an objective truth. Whether he should get 10 years in jail or 15 years in jail is to be decided by the legislature. Both sentences are appropriate. Within a certain range, either sentence is objectively valid.

If I am a homeowner and on rare occasions on a Sunday afternoon I use my chainsaw to cut wood for the shed I am building in my backyard, I am not harming my neighbor, at least to a level where he can take legal action against me. On the other hand, if, in my residential neighborhood, I install a high-speed, industrial saw and use it to 24/7 rip-saw truckloads of timber I regularly ship to my backyard, that is a problem! I do not think it is subjective for courts to resolve such disputes through specific lawsuits that rely on judicial precedent, or the legislature through statute to set practical limits in matters such as these.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I didn't say you did. I said Mweiss did. I quoted him, even.

Ah, OK. Sorry. Misunderstood because I thought I saw my name in there.

I could see where it might sound like I was in favor of zoning laws because I would use them in my favor to the extent I needed to in order to defend myself against someone using zoning against me or my property. And if I wanted to develop a parcel that was zoned retail and wanted to put houses, I'd certainly have to do through the zoning-change process in order to recoup my investment. Would I prefer a parcel not have zoning. You betcha.

Fortunately I haven't had to cross that bridge yet. On a side note on all of this, I've come to accept that having to pay to maintain our street, even if this other property owner would profit from it, is better than having a public road if only because we get to slurry it and make fixes every year. I say we "get to" because we certainly couldn't do that with a county road (probably get arrested or sued if we did).

CC&R's I'm wrestling with. I suppose I as a property owner could impose a condition where I sell only under certain terms, and I would think it's my right to do so just as it would be my right to decide who to sell to (though money talks louder than anything else, and I caused horror for some old folks five years ago when I told them we were selling our condo to a black family because they were the highest bidder, and I could care less about race anyway). But then that gets passed along generation after generation.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Okay. Antonio, do you object to anything I've said in this thread? Am I among the (still unknown) persons or viewpoints that you argue against?

I would have to go back to research it and I would if I weren't taking a breather at work and had more time, but what I was referring to was a response to Mark's query that suggested that the hearing on the development Mark was asking about not be held and that the government officials involved in the planning review be prosecuted for violating the developer's rights.

And I was referring, and probably should have been more specific, to the frequent scorched-earth type responses some folks make here. An example would be asking for advice on dealing with a problem with something involving one's child in a public school, and getting a response stating that there shouldn't be public schools or that one's child shouldn't be in a public school.

Those kinds of responses are unrealistic, which is why I brand them theoretical, because they don't address the situation, but a separate philosophical issue. We pretty much know that public schooling is wrong, even if some public schools or individual teachers are good. But some of us who are forced to pay a huge chunk of the fruits of our labors to the government have kids in public schools for a variety of reasons, whether they're social, practical or financial. I would love to be able to embark on a wholesale reform of the educational system, but that's not the right response someone would be looking for if they're just asking for advice on how to deal with an irrational principal or school official whose philosophy is a polar opposite because of religion or statism.

Frankly, a good example of how an objective thinker in an irrational world would be Leonard Peikhoff's rationale for voting Democrat in elections versus voting Republican or not voting at all. Even if I disagree with his conclusion, it is well reasoned and provides a logical way to cope with a political system that runs counter to what most of us here believe. In other words, yeah, the two major parties are bad choices, but Peikhoff explained very well that just because one vote Democrat, one's not selling one's soul to the pits of socialism hell.

I wish more folks here thought that way. That's the kind of thinking that even if I disagree with the conclusion, I can respect it and is so genius that I can apply it to other situations in life.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

And I was referring, and probably should have been more specific, to the frequent scorched-earth type responses some folks make here.

Okay, but without citing a specific response in this thread that fits that description, we are left to wonder: who are you talking to? Who is being accused of that? You need to at least answer that.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

Loading...
  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.
×
×
  • Create New...