Property Rights

Yes

14 (66.7%)

No

7 (33.3%)

Total Members Voted: 6

[voodoo]

Appraisers use three methods to determine property value:

Sales comparison - take recent sales within a predetermined area and apply standard adjustments for physical attributes (size, amenities, lot size, etc.)

Cost approach - price to build new less depreciation for age

Income approach - fair market rent times a gross rent multiplier

Insofar as an undesirable property may be reflected in the recent comps, one could say that a certified appraisal would show the current value of the subject property WITH the effect of the undesirable property.  But, there is no method that shows the property value if the undesirable property did not exist.  Also, it has been my experience that the appraiser's value is exactly what I tell him it is.   

[rabidfurby]

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.

You do not have a right to have the value of your property remain unchanged.

If I develop a fantastic new way to build houses out of thin air and am able to sell them for only $100 over the cost of the land they sit on, the increase in the supply of houses will cause the market value of most other houses to go down. Do I owe each of those homeowners money? Fuck no!

Looking at it another way, suppose I have a chunk of undeveloped land in an unzoned, un-deed-restricted area (i.e. libertopia) that has a lot of houses near it. According to you, if I build a toxic waste dump there that lowers the property values of those homes, I am liable to the homeowers. If I were to build something that increases their property values, such as a private school or park, would they owe me money for increasing their property values?

[BenTucker]

If I were to build something that increases their property values, such as a private school or park, would they owe me money for increasing their property values?

yes - they do today via the property tax (in a roundabout way)...

[Smitty507]

If I were to build something that increases their property values, such as a private school or park, would they owe me money for increasing their property values?

yes - they do today via the property tax (in a roundabout way)...

If A built something that increased the property value of B, A can charge B for the benefits of it.  For instance A may ask B for some money before A builds the school or park or whatever.

[BenTucker]

If I were to build something that increases their property values, such as a private school or park, would they owe me money for increasing their property values?

yes - they do today via the property tax (in a roundabout way)...

If A built something that increased the property value of B, A can charge B for the benefits of it.  For instance A may ask B for some money before A builds the school or park or whatever.

I said via the property tax they do today - although in a round about way.

if I build an addition onto my house I raise the land value of my neighbor. This increase in land value is taxed away via property tax which  I am then suppose to benefit from.

[Smitty507]

If I were to build something that increases their property values, such as a private school or park, would they owe me money for increasing their property values?

yes - they do today via the property tax (in a roundabout way)...

If A built something that increased the property value of B, A can charge B for the benefits of it.  For instance A may ask B for some money before A builds the school or park or whatever.

I said via the property tax they do today - although in a round about way.

if I build an addition onto my house I raise the land value of my neighbor. This increase in land value is taxed away via property tax which  I am then suppose to benefit from.

But A doesnt recieve all of the tax revenues.

[rabidfurby]

If I were to build something that increases their property values, such as a private school or park, would they owe me money for increasing their property values?

If A built something that increased the property value of B, A can charge B for the benefits of it. 

By "A can charge B", do you mean "A can go politely ask B for some money" or "B is obligated to give money to A, and A would be morally right to take it by force from B if B refuses to pay"?

If it's the latter, what you are advocating is called communism.

[BenTucker]

If I were to build something that increases their property values, such as a private school or park, would they owe me money for increasing their property values?

yes - they do today via the property tax (in a roundabout way)...

If A built something that increased the property value of B, A can charge B for the benefits of it.  For instance A may ask B for some money before A builds the school or park or whatever.

I said via the property tax they do today - although in a round about way.

if I build an addition onto my house I raise the land value of my neighbor. This increase in land value is taxed away via property tax which  I am then suppose to benefit from.

But A doesnt recieve all of the tax revenues.

correct - that is why I wrote "in a round about way"

[LuckySandal]

Owner A should have to pay owner B for any damage done to his property, as determined by a court of law.

[gandhi2]

I've prudently refrained from posting on this particular thread until now, but here it is, since LuckySandals bumped it.

There is no decrease in value that can not be accounted for, and each can be determined to be a cause of one or more persons, but that doesn't mean that everyone should be compensated for all loss of value.

Say Person A buys property out in the wilderness, and his property is worth a lot because there is some value to be had from particular buyers because of the seclusion.  20 years later, he has 10 neighbors, and his property is now devalued.  It has lost the value added due to seclusion, and this is a direct result of the 10 neighbors moving in.  However, there is no logical case that Person A needs to be compensated for this loss.  Person A realized, or should have if he didn't, that in order to maintain the seclusion value, he'd need to buy up the additional neighboring X number of acres, to be preserved for their scenic value and add a buffer from his land and the rest of the world.  This is the same case where one neighbor is particularly dirty and his yard devalues the neighbors.  Unless there are conditions attached to the land at the time of sale, the neighbor cannot be held liable for reparations due to property loss; he was acting within his property rights, and all the neighbors should have realized that this might happen.  The value added from living in a beautiful neighborhood was no product of their labor(at least not entirely so), and therefore no person owned it, nor could any person claim loss of it.  The seller of the property should have attached that condition as a part of the sales contract if they wanted to maintain it.  If the neighbors want to keep the value from a beautiful neighborhood, perhaps they could offer a monetary incentive to the seller, such that collectively, the value offered was much lower than the value obtained, yet enough incentive to cause the seller to add such a minor thing to his sales contract.

In the case of air pollution it could be argued that perhaps the molecules of methane which cause such a stench are infringing upon Person B's property and driving down the value.  In a ridiculous world, Person B could charge the trespass for each molecule.  In a more rational world Person B might build a system to filtrate the stench and then make a case in court that Person A's cows were the reason for it in the first place and therefore Person A should assist to pay for the filtration system.  In an even more rational world, Persons B-Z, the neighbors affected by the smell, would offer an incentive for Person A to filtrate the smell on his side.  The monetary incentive could very easily be much less collectively than the combined loss of property values, whilst still giving Person A ample benefit from the exchange.  In both scenarios, the stinky cattleherd has plenty of reason, whether through contractual obligation, legal retribution, or monetary incentive, to take care of the problem of his own volition.  You wouldn't need the Homeowner's Association to get involved, and most times, you wouldn't need the federal government to get involved.

[BenTucker]

Say Person A buys property out in the wilderness, and his property is worth a lot because there is some value to be had from particular buyers because of the seclusion.  20 years later, he has 10 neighbors, and his property is now devalued.  It has lost the value added due to seclusion, and this is a direct result of the 10 neighbors moving in.  However, there is no logical case that Person A needs to be compensated for this loss.

particular buyers does not describe the "market value"...it may have particular "personal utility value" to the person who occupies it now or who would have purchased it but that is not what economic rent is based on.

In an even more rational world, Persons B-Z, the neighbors affected by the smell, would offer an incentive for Person A to filtrate the smell on his side.

who was there first?

A or B-Z

[gandhi2]

1. It doesn't matter

and

2. It doesn't matter.

Go away Ben.  I'm not going to play with you.  The post was made to stimulate REAL debate among people who might possibly rationalize differently than your rigid and false philosophy of economic rent.  Every time you say that fucking phrase, you lose more and more credibility.  Stop trolling, nobody wants to hear this same shit over and over again, and each time you post the same crap in the forums, a greater and greater case can be made that all you are doing is spamming your own personal philosophy.  The porn spammers aren't allowed, I don't see what it should be any different when a troll is spamming something he professes to be true, and repeats the exact same fucking words innumerable times.

[Hittman]

so what makes an apraiser's word better than anyone elses? and who in this scenario was at the location first? 

This is an attempt to evade the question. 

A legitimate appraiser can determine the value of property.  If there's any doubt a couple of different, independent appraisers can pretty well zero in on what something is worth. 

By comparison, let's say you own a rare, valuable watch.  A visiting friend, thinking it's a joke, drops it in a cup of coffee, ruining it.  The value went from $3,000 to $500.  Does your friend owe you money for damaging your property?  Obviously.  (This isn't a perfect analogy, but then, no analogy is perfect.)

Someone who moves next to a chicken farm, or next to property that could reasonably be expected to be used as a chicken farm in the future, has no cause for complaint when someone buys the property and starts operating it as a chicken farm.  OTOH, if someone buys a piece of suburban property and later someone next door decides to open a chicken farm, complete with a rooster that crows at the break of dawn, they should have a right to compensation.  The farmer has caused the homeowner damage.

According to you, if I build a toxic waste dump there that lowers the property values of those homes, I am liable to the homeowers. 

Yes, you are.  You have caused them harm.  Measurable harm.  They should be compensated. 

If I were to build something that increases their property values, such as a private school or park, would they owe me money for increasing their property values? 

No.  No one has been harmed.   

However, there is no logical case that Person A needs to be compensated for this loss. Person A realized, or should have if he didn't, that in order to maintain the seclusion value, he'd need to buy up the additional neighboring X number of acres, to be preserved for their scenic value and add a buffer from his land and the rest of the world. This is the same case where one neighbor is particularly dirty and his yard devalues the neighbors. 

It's two different things.  Especially if the dirty neighbor comes in later, to existing property, and their actions devalue yours. 

Go away Ben. I'm not going to play with you. 

Everyone, please adopt this policy.  Please.  Ben has hijacked and ruined more discussion threads in this forum than anyone else.  Consider it ostracism practice.

[mikehz]

Usually, in most communities, there is an ordnance which prohibits the keeping of livestock or poultry on residential property under an acre. Restrictions on other animals, such as dogs, are less stringent. But, some dogs can produce more noise and mess than some livestock. For example, if I want, I can have up to three dogs in my yard--including three Great Danes, which can howl and bark all they want. At the same time, I'm strictly forbidden from keeping a single llama, which is nearly silent and produces less offensive animal waste (since it is a non-carnivore). Even a miniature horse or pygmy goat would prove a better critter for a back yard.

Some years ago, when I was racing pigeons, a friend of mine ran into this issue. He kept around 50 racing pigeons in a tidy loft set in his back yard. These birds produce little noise and almost no odor--certainly nothing noticeable outside the yard. Nonetheless, a neighbor reported to the city, which issued a citation on the grounds that the offender was "keeping poultry within the city limits." He took the matter to court, even bringing in an ornithologist from Easter Washington University, who demonstrated that "poultry" refers to birds "kept for meat or eggs." Since the pigeons in question were kept for sport, the judge ruled in the pigeon-keeper's favor, and he has his birds to this day.             

[Bill Brasky]

Usually, in most communities, there is an ordnance which prohibits the keeping of livestock or poultry on residential property under an acre. Restrictions on other animals, such as dogs, are less stringent. But, some dogs can produce more noise and mess than some livestock. For example, if I want, I can have up to three dogs in my yard--including three Great Danes, which can howl and bark all they want. At the same time, I'm strictly forbidden from keeping a single llama, which is nearly silent and produces less offensive animal waste (since it is a non-carnivore). Even a miniature horse or pygmy goat would prove a better critter for a back yard.

Some years ago, when I was racing pigeons, a friend of mine ran into this issue. He kept around 50 racing pigeons in a tidy loft set in his back yard. These birds produce little noise and almost no odor--certainly nothing noticeable outside the yard. Nonetheless, a neighbor reported to the city, which issued a citation on the grounds that the offender was "keeping poultry within the city limits." He took the matter to court, even bringing in an ornithologist from Easter Washington University, who demonstrated that "poultry" refers to birds "kept for meat or eggs." Since the pigeons in question were kept for sport, the judge ruled in the pigeon-keeper's favor, and he has his birds to this day.             

The problem lies within the definition.  Because laws and ordanances are meant to cover the population, they must be enacted in simple terms and it sometimes falls apart when specific cases are thrown against the larger concept.  Poultry versus pigeons, livestock versus great danes.  I'm not defending it, just pointing out that it applies to the greater part of the general concept.  The llama has hooves.  Anything with hooves is normally considered to be livestock.  There are special considerations when such animals are kept, they dont reside inside the house, for example.  Dogs do normally live among the family unit, and are domesticated to a different degree than a beast like a cow or a llama.  The llama and the cow and the horse all require shelter, as do the dogs, but in a residential area, it is obvious the house is where the dogs live (under most situations).  The animals with hooves belong in barns, and residential areas normally do not have a barn. 

In a perfect world, a man with common sense would have a shed or partition his garage for the llama, and treat it humanely.  But its not a perfect world, and common sense is a rare commodity.  So, its simpler to issue a decree that no livestock shall reside in a residential area. 

I dont agree with the mentality of generalized rules governing personal ownership, but I understand where they are coming from.