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 misunderstood. My response was to someone objecting to the statement that gov't uses violence. Of course it does. Everything the gov't does is ultimately backed up by violence if the party in question refuses to abide.

[CharacterCounts]

I for one am happy that the Constitution protects the rights even of jerks like this speculator. I find it amazing how many so-called conservatives are willing to turn the Constitution on its head when they are uncomfortable with the results.

[E Rocc]

He paid to put up the fence so he could charge people to take down the fence. There is no other reason for the fence except to extort money.

You have a strange, marxist view of "extortion". I always thought that making you pay for what I own is called "commerce". And I thought that you taking it without paying for it was called "theft".

You're on a commie soapbox demanding "land reform". Just look at yourself, man!

After all, isn't Mugabe claiming the white farmers are denying the "right" of the "war veterans" to "enjoy" their farms (or something like that)?

-Eric

[Protagoras]

Anti-social behavior may lead to the development of corrective legislation. Pretty simple.

The last bastion of the thug.

Some people think it's anti-social that they have less than others. That's how we got the welfare state. I'm sure you support that given your liberal and violent proclivities.

[Woodman]

If one of their kids drowned in the lake or a pet was eaten by an aligator, who would they sue? I think we know the answer. I would fence the property just to protect myself until someone else owned it.

[Protagoras]

Meanwhile ThomasJefferson and the rest of the deaf, dumb, and blind "in your face" libertarians here will continue to harrumph and complain that the statists are taking over while defending the miscreant

Hey Kevvie boy, I didn't see you withdraw your lie. Did you crawl back under your rock? Lowlife

[Dan from Michigan]

Zoning and Homeowners Associations permit this.

Would they permit me to remove my neighbors as well? They ain't too easy on the eyes...

That's a reason why I love the country so much.

[Roscoe]

[Anti-social behavior may lead to the development of corrective legislation.]

The last bastion of the thug.

The foundation of America's systems of laws.

[tacticalogic]

The structure would appear to have been erected with the intent to damage the property values of adjoining owners. Such behavior, if legal, may lead to changes in the laws and regulations governing that area.

Do you consider such use of the law a violation of the rights of the adjacent landowner? Would you consider it unethical?

[ET(end tyranny)]

Nope, sorry, you're wrong. If the law allows a privacy fence, then it's allowed for the purpose of protecting my right to privacy, and anyone who peers over the fence -- let alone someone who builds a structure to enable him to regularly see over it -- is violating my privacy, and will find out the hard way that it will not be tolerated.

You see, I have a right to enjoy MY privacy, and you do not. Nor do you have a right to prevent me from enjoying my privacy by defeating my privacy fence legally erected on my property.

Are you saying that the first people to build a 'structure', in this case a fence can prevent neighbors from building decks? Interesting, we put up a privacy fence and later the neighbors built a deck. Are you saying that they are not allowed to do that????

[Lazamataz]

Nope, sorry, you're wrong. If the law allows a privacy fence, then it's allowed for the purpose of protecting my right to privacy, and anyone who peers over the fence -- let alone someone who builds a structure to enable him to regularly see over it -- is violating my privacy, and will find out the hard way that it will not be tolerated.

Would you be so kind as to point out where in the Bill of Rights or in any civil or penal law that you have this 'right of privacy'? I assert that it does not exist. You may come up with any one civil or penal statute, or any one clause in the Constitution, to prove me wrong.

[Area51]

Yep. The homeowners would be better off forming a coalition and letting him decide between 1) a fair price for all the land and 2) not one damn cent from any of them. I suspect, faced with the prospect of not recouping anything, he's sell them the property at a more reasonable price.

451 posted on 5/14/02 9:19 AM Pacific by NittanyLion [ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 441 | View Replies | Report Abuse ]

I had a couple of "neighbors" suggest what I could and could not do with my property, this was after I re-established the legal boundries that they had inadvertantly borrowed 50 feet or so of to plant a hedge row. They owned one acre parcels.

Guess what? When I suggested that A) They either keep to there own land or b) Learn to live with a 1,000 Hog farm in there back yard they decided to become civilized.