[AppyPappy]

He had to pay to erect the fence so he could deny people the right to their view of the lake. He had to pay someone to pay it pink. He acted with malice to hurt the people around the lake in order to extort money from them.

[freedomcrusader]

He had to pay to erect the fence so he could deny people the right to their view of the lake.

Yes, he had to pay for the fence, so what? What 'right' did these people have to a view of the lake? They enjoyed that view based on the good will of the developer. They never had a right to it. If they want a right to it, it now costs $30K.

[freedomcrusader]

He acted with malice to hurt the people around the lake in order to extort money from them.

Malice, maybe, but the fact is, he owns the land. If there are no restrictions that came with the land preventing his building a fence, then the reason he built it is immaterial. It may be a nuisance that lowers property values, and there may be some legal basis there on which they can act. I don't know.

But the fact remains, he can build a fence on his property to raise the value of it.

[Protagoras]

He acted with malice to hurt the people around the lake in order to extort money from them.

Would you propose a law against malice?