View for sale: $30,000 New owner of a lake fences it off when homeowners wouldn't pay.

St. Petersburg Times ^ | May 14, 2002 | ROBERT FARLEY

[freedomcrusader]

You have no right to stop me from enjoying my property as long as I don't hurt you in the process.

Agreed 100%. The homeowners didn't own a view of the lake. They didn't own the lake. They didn't own the strip of land around the lake. They had a view of the lake for free at the courtesy of the developer. Once the land changed hands, the new owner decided not to provide a view of the lake, access to the lake, or use of the strip of land around the lake for free.

[Kevin Curry]

I would not sleep well at night if I was in this type of business, but it looks like a legal form of making a profit to me!

It won't be for long. Don't you understand that? This is the kind of stupid-libertarian-trick behavior that generates new laws restricting the use of private property. And always these laws impose far more onerous burdens on a far greater number of people than were affected to begin with.

Libertarians are more dense than granite.

[Minnesoootan]

I meant to say suburban,check your plot plan good,and also,check your basement before purchasing,lot's of dreams here in the Twins have been shattered when the property is worthless because of seepage/saturation caused by a poorly planned swamp....;-)

[bvw]

But would the town continue to pay the maintenence of wood siding -- $5K or more every five or so years to repaint?

[Lazamataz]

I actually think his risk exposure is at a minimum with this deal however. They will eventually pay, and he will turn a nice profit on the deal.

Disagree. I believe the county will intervene and condemn his land. If I was on the board, I would vote to condemn. Call it a public park, give him cost + fees and maybe 10% premium, and send him crying but packing.

This is similar to those that purchase an expired domain name, post some porn, and then make the person who previously owned the domain name pay an excessive price to regain it. Distasteful, but legal, it is also totally avoidable if people would pay attention.

This is also not possible any more, since the Net Domain people (I forget their name offhand) has an Arbitration process and you can get your domain name adversarily dispossessed.

[Lazamataz]

I meant to say suburban,check your plot plan good,and also,check your basement before purchasing,lot's of dreams here in the Twins have been shattered when the property is worthless because of seepage/saturation caused by a poorly planned swamp....;-)

All very important points. Thanks for the headsup.

[Lazamataz]

It won't be for long. Don't you understand that? This is the kind of stupid-libertarian-trick behavior that generates new laws restricting the use of private property. And always these laws impose far more onerous burdens on a far greater number of people than were affected to begin with.

New laws are not needed. Existing laws can deal with this.

Libertarians are more dense than granite.

Libertarianism has absolutely nothing to do with this. You remind me of Tabitha Soren, who turns every thread into a thread about abortion.

[Lazamataz]

Yes they are, but as I understand it the owner has a right to an easement to gain access. However from what I've heard getting that statutory right enforced is often an exercise in futility.

Precisely. So, this guy is up a creek without an easement.

[Hemingway's Ghost]

What a stunning retort.

Your sophmoric grasp of Marxism, demonstrated by further posts on this thread, combined with your failure to read my post in context with another I directed at Wolfie, deserves no less.

[Protagoras]

You have no right to stop me from enjoying my property as long as I don't hurt you in the process. Ever heard of Libertarianism?

You are misapplying the concepts. You seem stuck on the mistaken belief that you somehow have rights to other people's property.

I'll go through this even though it didn't seem necessary before.

If you buy a house next to vacant land and you enjoy the solitude of having no neighbors and the view of the land that is not currently occupied and then someone comes along and buys the property and builds a house on it (or a subdivision, or a shopping mall) and it ruins your view and solitude and therefore your enjoyment of your property, what are your "rights"? Think about this and spare me from scores more of examples.

[bvw]

This is the kind of stupid-libertarian-trick behavior that generates new laws restricting the use of private property. And always these laws impose far more onerous burdens on a far greater number of people than were affected to begin with.

Yes. That is also one big reason why the court system princible of "stare decisis" is a tryranny when overapplied, as it can be. It handcuffs ad-hoc almost extra-legal but "just" judgements in cases like this, where the legal record is not likely to show the acrimony, meaness and bitterness that causes a Judge to act more like a policeman on the scene of a confrontation, than a Judge deciding legal princibles that may be generally applied.

[A. Pole]

But would the town continue to pay the maintenence of wood siding -- $5K or more every five or so years to repaint?

I am sure if there is a good will, it can be settled reasonably. This widow has not money, town and her like to have a good looking siding. There is no real conflict of interest. Repainting can be done for FREE by the volunteers who like their town and want to help the widow.

Good neighbours make good sidings!