Property Rights

Yes

14 (66.7%)

No

7 (33.3%)

Total Members Voted: 6

[Smitty507]

I know that most of you, like myself,  are advocates for full property rights asserting that an individual should be able to do whatever he wants on his own property.  As such one must therefore be against zoning regulations that may perhaps disallow a Property owner (we'll call him A) from keeping livestock in a residential area.  However given that livestock tend to be rather offensive to the olfactory senses and that some types of animals can become annoyingly vociferous at times this can adversely affect the owner of an adjacent property (we'll call him B) in the event that B is trying to sell his own property.  My question is if Property Owner B can prove that Property Owner A's livestock has adversely affected the resale value of B's property, does B have a right to some form of compensation?  This question holds true for any type of offensive practice that A may be engaging in: uncut grass, garbage on the front lawn, peculiar smells, etc.

Justify your votes below.

[voodoo]

No vote.  False choice.

First, your polling question doesn't match.  But, more importantly, there's a flaw in the premise.  If the land has traditionally been used for agriculture, I don't have any sympathy for B.  If the land is an established residential neighborhood and A introduces cattle or, your continuation, doesn't maintain the property to B's liking, B has to show actual damage - a verifiable decrease in the value of B's property.

It's the same with the folks who purchase cheap land near an airport and then whine about the airplane noise.  Or, folks who bought houses in Marion around Hunter's Ridge.  Or, folks who bought out by the downs.  Or, bought in the neighborhoods surrounding Pennick and Ford (arguably the worst-smelling place on the entire earth).  Oh yeah, that would be Coe. 

[BenTucker]

the typical response that you will probably receive from most libertarians will be similar to that which you here from advocates againast Ip law.

the owner of ideas should bind each of the recepients of the ideas via contract to what they can or can not do with the ideas.
the landowner near his/her land should bind each of his neighbors via contract from what their neighbors can or can not do to keep from being subjected to negative externalities.

zoning (not unlike IP in some way) is a blanket agreement by community members to try and mitigate negative externalities that would devalue the land values that landowners receive via the positive externalities of their neighbors labor.

[Smitty507]

No vote.  False choice.

First, your polling question doesn't match.  But, more importantly, there's a flaw in the premise.  If the land has traditionally been used for agriculture, I don't have any sympathy for B.  If the land is an established residential neighborhood and A introduces cattle or, your continuation, doesn't maintain the property to B's liking, B has to show actual damage - a verifiable decrease in the value of B's property.

It's the same with the folks who purchase cheap land near an airport and then whine about the airplane noise.  Or, folks who bought houses in Marion around Hunter's Ridge.  Or, folks who bought out by the downs.  Or, bought in the neighborhoods surrounding Pennick and Ford (arguably the worst-smelling place on the entire earth).  Oh yeah, that would be Coe. 

Indeed, Cedar Rapids is the City of Five Smells.  But my question still stands.  If an unbiased apraiser comes in and determines that B's house and property are worth $100,000, but B can only sell it for $80,000 that seems like a viable case for harm to me.

[mrapplecastle]

No vote.  False choice.

First, your polling question doesn't match.  But, more importantly, there's a flaw in the premise.  If the land has traditionally been used for agriculture, I don't have any sympathy for B.  If the land is an established residential neighborhood and A introduces cattle or, your continuation, doesn't maintain the property to B's liking, B has to show actual damage - a verifiable decrease in the value of B's property.

It's the same with the folks who purchase cheap land near an airport and then whine about the airplane noise.  Or, folks who bought houses in Marion around Hunter's Ridge.  Or, folks who bought out by the downs.  Or, bought in the neighborhoods surrounding Pennick and Ford (arguably the worst-smelling place on the entire earth).  Oh yeah, that would be Coe. 

Indeed, Cedar Rapids is the City of Five Smells. But my question still stands. If an unbiased apraiser comes in and determines that B's house and property are worth $100,000, but B can only sell it for $80,000 that seems like a viable case for harm to me.

why? because some dude said it was worth x amount, shouldnt the market decide how much the house and property would be worth, if it could only be sold for 80,000 then its only worth 80,000 right?

[Smitty507]

No vote.  False choice.

First, your polling question doesn't match.  But, more importantly, there's a flaw in the premise.  If the land has traditionally been used for agriculture, I don't have any sympathy for B.  If the land is an established residential neighborhood and A introduces cattle or, your continuation, doesn't maintain the property to B's liking, B has to show actual damage - a verifiable decrease in the value of B's property.

It's the same with the folks who purchase cheap land near an airport and then whine about the airplane noise.  Or, folks who bought houses in Marion around Hunter's Ridge.  Or, folks who bought out by the downs.  Or, bought in the neighborhoods surrounding Pennick and Ford (arguably the worst-smelling place on the entire earth).  Oh yeah, that would be Coe. 

Indeed, Cedar Rapids is the City of Five Smells. But my question still stands. If an unbiased apraiser comes in and determines that B's house and property are worth $100,000, but B can only sell it for $80,000 that seems like a viable case for harm to me.

why? because some dude said it was worth x amount, shouldnt the market decide how much the house and property would be worth, if it could only be sold for 80,000 then its only worth 80,000 right?

Yes the market price is $80,000 but that is because A has effectively stollen the $20,000 from B.

[mrapplecastle]

how can you show that theft except by getting some dude to say it is worth more, if the apraiser thinks its worth so much, maybe he can sell it too

[Smitty507]

how can you show that theft except by getting some dude to say it is worth more, if the apraiser thinks its worth so much, maybe he can sell it too

Well that's what apraisers do, they determine the value of a property.

[BenTucker]

how can you show that theft except by getting some dude to say it is worth more, if the apraiser thinks its worth so much, maybe he can sell it too

Well that's what apraisers do, they determine the value of a property.

market value not personal utility value...

[Smitty507]

how can you show that theft except by getting some dude to say it is worth more, if the apraiser thinks its worth so much, maybe he can sell it too

Well that's what apraisers do, they determine the value of a property.

market value not personal utility value...

An apraiser wouls still be able to determine price with or with out the externalities from A.

[mrapplecastle]

how can you show that theft except by getting some dude to say it is worth more, if the apraiser thinks its worth so much, maybe he can sell it too

Well that's what apraisers do, they determine the value of a property.

...........anyone can be an apraiser, I value my socks at 3,000 dollars.........any takers?

[mrapplecastle]

this sounds too much like I'm gonna use the apraiser to file a lawsuit against my neighbor for the loss in my property value..........mommy government please take my money back, the apraiser said he stole it from me

[Smitty507]

this sounds too much like I'm gonna use the apraiser to file a lawsuit against my neighbor for the loss in my property value..........mommy government please take my money back, the apraiser said he stole it from me

If you used a certified apraiser Im sure he wouldnt value your socks at $3000.  And if you did and brought that to arbitration your case would quickly be dismissed.

[mrapplecastle]

so what makes an apraiser's word better than anyone elses? and who in this scenario was at the location first?
I would also tell owner B to check to see who his neighbors will be, before moving again

If you used a certified apraiser

certified by who, unless its by both property owners, I wouldnt care

[BenTucker]

how can you show that theft except by getting some dude to say it is worth more, if the apraiser thinks its worth so much, maybe he can sell it too

Well that's what apraisers do, they determine the value of a property.

...........anyone can be an apraiser, I value my socks at 3,000 dollars.........any takers?

that is personal utility value - what they are subjectively worth to you.

market value is objective with enough data points of actual sales.