Replies

How he maintained or did not maintain his property was nobody's business but his. He was not directly harming any of his neighbors...

That's o.k. in a rural setting where you can't see the next neighbor down the street, or can't see the house from the street. Let his place rot and fall down for all I care. But in a normal urban/suburban setting he is adversely affecting the property values of all of his neighbors. He does NOT have a right to do that!

But in a normal urban/suburban setting he is adversely affecting the property values of all of his neighbors. He does NOT have a right to do that!

I am beginning to truly believe that all our constitutional rights are going down the drain due to...fools like you spouting the PROPERTY VALUES right...which does not exist.

Perhaps you are correct. However does the STATE have the right to bring forth a situation that causes the two deaths.

My neighbors house needs painting, maybe the "STATE" should apply some strongarm pressure on her to get it done. She cannot afford it but that gives her no right to not paint it. Maybe they can haul her into court a few times, serves her right.

At just what level of urbanization does a person's right to peacefully enjoy his/her own property end? Do neighbors have a right to demand a specific color to the house? Do they have a right to selection of art work on the front of the house? Do they have a right to prohibit signs advocating something? All of these issues may "affect" their property values. So might fences and a number of other things such as a car in a state of disrepair a number of visitors at strange hours. Visitors of another race, religion or ethnic group etc may also adversely affect property values. for that matter ongoing contruction could adversely affect property values or a brood of children next door might affect your property values. I read nowhere of anyone offering him compensation for this state taking of his property rights. This is America with some clearly stated rights in our Bill of Rights and in most state constitutions. Unless or until I see some justification for such a housing court clearly stated as a limit to propeerty rights in one of the documents definig the powers of the state or federal government I submit this was and is a total travesty.

"He does NOT have a right to do that!"

I moved next door to a house that had falling gutters, peeling paint and a half finished porch. The only time I was a little bit upset was when the kids started tearing down my fence because they didn't understand that some people like to keep their house nice. Later on, the police hauled the guy away in handcuffs. His crime was that he had a pile of wood in the backyard. In my opinion, my concerns of how someone wants to live ends at my property line. The government wanted to steal this guy's house and they're doing it.

But in a normal urban/suburban setting he is adversely affecting the property values of all of his neighbors. He does NOT have a right to do that!

BULL! A private property owner has EVERY right to do that! There is absolutely NO SUCH THING as a RIGHT to high property values.

What communist sewage pipe have you been sucking on?

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.

But in a normal urban/suburban setting he is adversely affecting the property values of all of his neighbors. He does NOT have a right to do that!

Maybe some of those neighbors who were concerned about their property values should have gotten together and helped him repair his house....instead of turning him in to the city? At the very least... someone (even the judge) could have contacted one of those charity organizations that do repairs and remodels on homes for the elderly and less fortunate. This whole thing was handled poorly...resulting in two people losing their lives unnecessarily, IMHO.

adversely affecting the property values of all of his neighbors. He does NOT have a right to do that!

BS. You have the "right" to move away if you don't like it. You have "no right" to tell someone what to do with their property in rural or suberban situations unless the activity is actually infringing on your individual rights. As we can all see, property has no rights, by way of civil forfeiture laws.

EBUCK