Posted on 03/20/2002 9:02:11 AM PST by nemo
No, it only affects the dollar value. You can still dispose of your property (nobody has taken that from you) but probably not for what you think it is worth.
In a free market capitalist society what you are free to do is:
If you think your neighbor is driving the price of your property down, you simply buy his property and then you can do with it as you see fit. Otherwise, you have no right to impose your will on him for your benefit.
This is incorrect. The value of any good on the market is exactly what the buyer is willing to pay. Value is completely and utterly subjective. Some people will refuse to buy a beautifully kept-up house in a safe neighborhood because their prospective neighbor owns several large dogs or has a number of young children. Are the neighbors violating your property rights by having a family? In no way.
Your property rights are an objective fact: no one may intrude on your property or take it from you by either force or fraud without violating your rights. This is objectively ascertainable: is someone on your property without your permission?
Value is entirely subjective - is the neighbor's house too pink? Have too many children in it? Have too many cheesy lawn ornaments? Have an extremely ugly car parked in its driveway? There are far too many variables to judge. No one can draw a definitive line as to what constitutes the erosion of property value in the mind of each and every prospective buyer.
But you can draw a physical line between where your property ends and another's begins. If your house is worth $25,000 or $250,000 it's still your house.
Not according to me. According to the law in Chicago (the quality of upkeep on someones house is enough to have the courts and police involved.) ... We can argue about the specifics of this particular case; however, the underlying point is beyond reasonable dispute. (snip) I have a responsibility to take into account how my actions -- even on my own property -- will affect the neighbors. (snip) The man clearly had no compassion or understanding for his neighbors.
You are correct in that you do have a responsibility to consider how your actions on your property affect your neighbors ... There are laws about noise, firing a gun, operating a business in a residential area, etc. that are valid concerns for the community and it is reasonable that these sorts of disputes are handled by the courts and police. But an old man living as a recluse in a dilapidated house is pushing the boundries of what is proper for the law to be involved with. Your property's value because of proximity to such a person is not a valid concern of the law. If this is the way the law in Chicago is written, then it is wrong. Further, the involvement of the courts and the action of the police in this matter were improper at best, and plain stupid at worst.
The old man may have had little compassion or understanding for his neighbors, but he didn't have to, so long as he kept to himself, didn't play his stereo too loud, shoot a gun in the front yard, or try to open a used car lot in his front yard. The right to live in peace, secure in one's possessions are fundamental principles of this republic ... at least they used to be ...
Who EVER guaranteed you that you would be free from the vagaries of the real estate market?
Are you suggesting that you have a "right" to recoup any loss in market value that might result from your neighbor's house burning to the ground?
Are you going to sue your city for "lowering" your property values by not being as not being as glamorous and popular as New York City?
Are you going to tell us next that you have the right to decide to run off and kill those property value lowering rag-heads infesting the neighborhood?
You don't have any natural right whatsoever to another person's property. You only have LAWS passed by THIEVES upon which to rely. The fact that you support killing this old man because his siding, gutters and front porch weren't up to snuff clearly identifies you as the enemy.
You aren't a member of the Henry Bowman fan club by any chance are you?
From now on, I recommend just pumping Zyklon-B directly down through the roof vents when a criminal such as this "property owner" refuses to comply. We try to be nice to these CATTLE and this is how they repay us?!
That says a lot right there.
You PISSANT "it affects my property value" types make me sick to my F'ing stomach! What makes you think for an instant that you are ENTITLED to any value that a "good neighbour's" proximity might add to your property? If a bad neighbor is dragging your property price down, you think he should have to pay the difference. However, if good neigbour is inflating your price, you should be entitled to keep the increase without sharing in the cost of his property. You thieving commie scumbag.
Yup. So any way you slice it, my neighbor imposes costs on me. Of course, the fact that his exercise of his property rights might qualify as an imposition of his will on me and his other neighbors, is of no import.
This illustrates the problem with property rights absolutists. The exercise of property rights can and does impose costs on others. The unasked-for imposition of costs is a violation of my property rights.
It's beyond ludicrous to suggest that my neighbors and I have no legitimate claims to recourse if some guy on the block decides, say, to open a biker bar or brothel in his house. Clearly it's within his absolute property rights to do such things. And just as clearly, his actions will affect the rest of us -- not just our property values, but also things like our quality of life, and even safety. He has imposed definite costs.
As is typical with libertarian solutions, those behaviors that are detrimental to the community must be allowed at all costs, whereas community standards cannot be enforced, because it's "legislating morality."
The basic premise of those who advocate absolute property rights is that we can pretend to live in isolation from those around us. In real life, the pretense does not stand up to serious scrutiny.
Many on this thread have staked out a libertarian (i.e., indefensible) position on property rights. Here in the real world, it's better to recognize that there are in fact legitimate constraints to the exercise of property rights, and to lay out a defensible position on how to maximize property rights, and keep the constraints to a minimum.
I'm hoping you forgot the < /sarcasm> tag. Otherwise I'd have to peg you as an idiot.
OTOH, if he can buy it for $100k, fix it up for another $50k, and sell it for $200k, then it's worth it.
I suspect it's that sort of situation -- a trashed house in a neighborhood that's on its way up. It explains not only the offered price, but also the complaints.
All this while our government encourages and supports the *MILLIONS* of illegal aliens that fill our jails, choke off our social services, drive down our wages, while driving up the taxes, standing room only in many big city ERs, while packing them into our already overcrowded classrooms etc etc etc.
If the risks (what you're calling "costs") become greater than your return on your investment in property, you can sell it for property which has a more acceptable risk profile.
For example, if you can't handle having neighbors who use their property as they see fit, you can always invest in housing in a community where property owners have agreed to abide by certain conditions.
In a free society there is only one constraint (and it's not on property): you cannot trespass against or appropriate anyone else or their property without their consent. All other constraints are constraints on property and freedom.
As far as "the real world" is concerned, if conditions are unjust they should be made just. No small number of men told Thomas Jefferson, George Washington and Samuel Adams that they should just "accept reality". Thankfully, they refused.
They wouldn't have acknowledged such unconscionable violations of life, liberty and property, and neither should we - no matter what the CHD decides is best for us subjects.
Lest we forget, Mr. Wolk was the one who started the killing, after having defied a variety of legally constituted authorities.
We can argue about the particular law. However, Mr. Wolk was very much in the wrong in this case.
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.