Property Rights

Yes

14 (66.7%)

No

7 (33.3%)

Total Members Voted: 6

[Wayne]

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.

I'm voting "No."

Unless the gases wafting from next door are doing measurable damage--for example, he's releasing some toxic gas that's killing your plants and poisoning your cat--I would argue that no harm is done, at least not in any sense that should merit legal consideration.

In this case, since there's no damage actually occuring, harm cannot be PROVEN, which common sense says should be required before one demands compensation.

And no, having Owner B bring in an appraiser who claims his property is worth $100K, yet the highest bid he has after a year is $80K, doesn't prove squat. Why not have Owner A bring in his appraiser? (wink, wink) Because there might be bias there? Hmmmm....

For that matter, even if all the appraisers agreed, that's still not proof. The odor probably is impacting the resale value, but until you can prove how much, if any, you can't reasonably pull out the guns on your neighbor to extract compensation. How much of the "loss" (as if Owner B is entitled to a resale in the first place) is due to the livestock nearby, and how much to the fact that Owner B is a jerk and no one likes him, and his stuff sells for less anyway? How much of it is due to the fact that everyone else in town knows that his house was built on an Indian burial ground, but no one bothered to tell A or B? Or just because no one really wants the property that badly, regardless of the appraisers' opinions?

The best you could do would be to have one man, gifted with the "authority" to arbitrate, and hopefully some divine insights into the situation, make guesses and estimates about the actual dollars-and-cents value of the "loss" based on all the data. And I have a really hard time agreeing to force money from someone based on guesses and estimates, especially when no damage is done and the only "loss" is from future, potential profits anyhow.

Seems like a case for a non-coercive resolution, if any.

-Wayne

[robbyweber82]

we have no rights to our property. which is why i rent.