Posted on 12/30/2004 9:19:55 AM PST by The Great Yazoo
When I was house-hunting, one of the things that struck me about the house that I eventually settled on was the fact that there were no curtains or shades on the bathroom window in the back. The reason was that there was no one living on the steep hillside in back, which was covered with trees.
Since I don't own that hillside, someday someone may decide to build houses there, which means that the bathroom would then require curtains or shades and our back porch would no longer be as private. Fortunately for me, local restrictive laws currently prevent houses from being built on that hillside.
Also fortunately for me, my continued criticisms of such laws in this column have not made a dent in the local authorities.
But suppose that someday either the courts will strike down land use restrictions or local officials will respect property rights. Maybe I will be long gone by then and the new owner of this house will be angry at the diminished privacy -- and consequently the diminished value of the house, caused by the building of houses on the hillside.
Would that anger be justified?
The fundamental question is: What did the homeowner buy? And would a change in laws deprive him of what he paid for?
Since the house and the wooded hillside are separate properties, the homeowner never paid for a hillside wooded in perpetuity.
If whoever owns the hillside finds that his property is worth more with houses on it, what right does the adjacent homeowner have to deprive the other owner of the benefits of building on that hillside or selling it to a builder?
True, my house was worth more because of the privacy provided by the wooded hillside. But there was no guarantee that the hill would remain wooded forever. Whoever buys the house buys its current privacy and the chance -- not a certainty -- that the hill will remain wooded.
If a homeowner wanted a guarantee that the hill would remain as is, he could have bought the hill. That way he would be paying for what he wanted, rather than expecting the government to deprive someone else for his benefit.
Many restrictive land use laws in effect turn a chance that someone paid for into a guarantee that they did not pay for, such as a guarantee that a given community would retain its existing character.
In the normal course of events, things change. Land that is not nearly as valuable as farmland as it would be for housing would be sold to people who would build housing. But restrictive laws prevent this from happening.
Such laws help preserve the existing character of the community, at the expense of farmers and others who would gladly sell their land to builders if they had a chance to do so. Because they can't, their value of their land is reduced drastically.
The biggest losers are those families who are deprived of housing and those families who are deprived of the standard of living they could have if they did not have to pay for sky-high rents or home prices due to an artificial scarcity of housing.
The biggest winners are existing homeowners, who see the value of their property go up by leaps and bounds. Also benefitting are environmentalist groups who are able to buy up farmland at a fraction of its value because there are so few alternatives for the farmers.
One of the rationales for such land use restrictions is the "preservation" of agricultural land. But nothing is easier than to dream up a rationale to put a fig leaf on naked self-interest. Far from being in danger of losing our food supply, we have had chronic agricultural surpluses for more than half a century.
Another rationale for laws restricting land use is that "open space" is a good thing, that it prevents "overcrowding" for example. But preventing people from building homes in one place only makes the crowding greater in other places. This is just another fig leaf for the self-interest of those who want other people to be forced to live somewhere else.
Whatever their rhetoric or rationales, environmentalists have no more rights under the Constitution than anyone else -- at least not until liberal judges began "interpreting" property rights away.
©2004 Creators Syndicate, Inc.
Get it?
Police Powers: Model and Reality
Address:http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1312170/posts
Exactly.
"And it instructs those same governments & their officials to take action to defend that right, -- regardless of whether private citizens, corporations, or other groups/governments are so infringing."
Bullsh^t.
Show me the specific section where the Constitution "instructs those same governments & their officials to take action to defend that right, -- regardless of whether private citizens, corporations, or other groups/governments are so infringing."
You won't because you refuse to back any of the ridiculous claims you continuously litter this forum with, and you refuse to do so because you make stuff up out of whole cloth, and yor own feeble, misguided imagination.
Now, it's time for you to put up or shut up.
Post the Artcile, Section and Clause where the Constitution intructs the government to do what you claim it does.
"It prohibits Federal/State/local governments from infringing on our rights to keep and bear arms...
-- And it instructs those same governments & their officials to take action to defend that right, -- regardless of whether private citizens, corporations, or other groups/governments are so infringing."
jones
Here's Article VI since as usual you can't back up any of your bullsh%t, I'll post it and expose you for the illiterate fraud that you are:
Article. VI.
Clause 1: All Debts contracted and Engagements entered into, before the Adoption of this Constitution, shall be as valid against the United States under this Constitution, as under the Confederation.
Clause 2: This Constitution, and the Laws of the United States which shall be made in Pursuance thereof; and all Treaties made, or which shall be made, under the Authority of the United States, shall be the supreme Law of the Land; and the Judges in every State shall be bound thereby, any Thing in the Constitution or Laws of any State to the Contrary notwithstanding.
Clause 3: The Senators and Representatives before mentioned, and the Members of the several State Legislatures, and all executive and judicial Officers, both of the United States and of the several States, shall be bound by Oath or Affirmation, to support this Constitution; but no religious Test shall ever be required as a Qualification to any Office or public Trust under the United States.
Passing a law which violates the basic right of a property owner to set the rules of access to his property violates the natural rights of property owners, it defends nothing because no one's rights are being threatened. Since you're not forced to enter my property against your will, you don't have to forfeit your gun.
You can simply walk away and you keep your gun while I keep my property rights.
Instead, people like you believe that the government has a right to violate the rights of others in order to support your beliefs, people exactly like yourself violate property rights in the name of endangered animal species, trees, and even habitats.
You are just a gun-toting leftist...that's all. You believe that the government exists to violate rights in the name of the communal good, and that private property should be subjected to the will of the misguided minority. People like yourself have given powers to the government to violate property rights and actualize land grabs all over the US.
As usual, you have no idea, nor can you verbalize anything but your idiotic misinterpretation of the Constitution.
Post the Artcile, Section and Clause where the Constitution intructs the government to do what you claim it does.
Article VI.
Read the whole thing. It's short. -- Although I doubt that will help you to understand the basic concept it outlines.
Article. VI.
All Debts contracted and Engagements entered into, before the Adoption of this Constitution, shall be as valid against the United States under this Constitution, as under the Confederation.
This Constitution, and the Laws of the United States which shall be made in Pursuance thereof; and all Treaties made, or which shall be made, under the Authority of the United States, shall be the supreme Law of the Land; and the Judges in every State shall be bound thereby, any Thing in the Constitution or Laws of any State to the Contrary notwithstanding.
The Senators and Representatives before mentioned, and the Members of the several State Legislatures, and all executive and judicial Officers, both of the United States and of the several States, shall be bound by Oath or Affirmation, to support this Constitution; but no religious Test shall ever be required as a Qualification to any Office or public Trust under the United States.
Passing a law which violates the basic right of a property owner to set the rules of access to his property violates the natural rights of property owners, it defends nothing because no one's rights are being threatened.
Making unreasonable rules which infringe upon the basic right of the people to carry arms to & from work sets parking lot property owners in conflict with the public policy inherent in the 2nd Amendment.
Such 'rules' defend nothing because no one's property rights are being threatened.
Since you're not forced to enter my property against your will, you don't have to forfeit your gun. You can simply walk away and you keep your gun while I keep my property rights.
You provide a parking lot for employee use. Simply walk away and let them keep their guns locked in their cars. Your property rights are not threatened in any way.
Instead, people like you believe that the government has a right to violate the rights of others in order to support your beliefs,
Not so. Instead, you seem to believe that the government must support parking lot owners property rights in order to justify a belief that guns locked in cars are evil.
The reverse is true, as Article VI proves:
" -- The Senators and Representatives before mentioned, and the Members of the several State Legislatures, and all executive and judicial Officers, both of the United States and of the several States, shall be bound by Oath or Affirmation, to support this Constitution; -- "
people exactly like yourself violate property rights in the name of endangered animal species, trees, and even habitats. You are just a gun-toting leftist...that's all. You believe that the government exists to violate rights in the name of the communal good, and that private property should be subjected to the will of the misguided minority.
No, I believe that a misguided minority of anti-gun nuts are cynically using property rights to infringe upon our rights to bear arms.
People like yourself have given powers to the government to violate property rights and actualize land grabs all over the US.
Empty rhetoric. I do not support land grabs.
As usual, you have no idea, nor can you verbalize anything but your idiotic misinterpretation of the Constitution.
My arguments here are clear enough. You can't counter them with logic, thus the constant personal invective.
Making a law which infringes on a property owner's right to set rules of access to his property because you're too lazy to find alternative parking is the utmost in liberal thinking.
You have no right to park on my property against my wishes, and your entire argument is based on a lie.
The Second Amendment Foundation and the Constitution Foundation BOTH agree with my argument, but you're too much of an idiot to actually understand them.
You believe that you have a right to park on private property according to your terms, not the property owners.
The Oklahoma law will go down in flames.
They are making unreasonable rules which infringe upon the basic right of the people to carry arms to & from work.
Making a law which infringes on a property owner's right to set rules of access to his property because you're too lazy to find alternative parking is the utmost in liberal thinking.
Companies provide a parking lot for employee use. They can simply walk away and let them keep their guns locked in their cars. Property rights are not "infringed" or threatened in any way.
You have no right to park on my property against my wishes, and your entire argument is based on a lie.
Lie? What lie? My arguments here are clear enough. You can't counter them with logic, thus the constant personal invective.
The Second Amendment Foundation and the Constitution Foundation BOTH agree with my argument, but you're too much of an idiot to actually understand them.
You argue here that employees guns, locked in cars in company parking lots, -- somehow violate property rights.. Neither of the Foundations have agreed with that argument.
You believe that you have a right to park on private property according to your terms, not the property owners.
No, I'm saying that employees should not be barred from locking their arms in their vehicles while on company provided lots.
The Oklahoma law will go down in flames.
Why do you want it to go down in flames?
Why do you want employees disarmed?
Who is harmed by a gun in a locked car?
These anti-gun nuts include the Second Amendment Foundation, the Constitution Foundation, and other pro Second Amendment organizations.
The only misguided minority nutjob left here is you.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.