15 ms·

This is a straw man reply. It isn't responsive to the original objection -- why should the government get to decide whether someone can build a radio tower on p

This is a straw man reply. It isn't responsive to the original objection -- why should the government get to decide whether someone can build a radio tower on private property, provided that it doesn't adversely impact anyone else? The proposed use of the tower is irrelevant.

wlesieutre 10y ago
I don't know what the land use laws are over there, but I can tell you that in the US, the government frequently gets to decide whether someone can build a radio tower on private property. I'm fairly certain if someone bought a plot of land near me and said "I'm building a 1000 ft. tall radio mast for stock trading" they'd be promptly told to fuck off. On the other hand, if a project is being built to provide a public benefit, say for an emergency radio system or something, then variances are more likely.
- foota 10y ago
  I don't think that answers they question of why the government should be able to do so.
  - wlesieutre 10y ago
    A more extreme example to make a point: because it would be bad if someone could buy up the house next to me, knock it down, and replace it with a sewage plant. At least in the US, a large component of limiting land use is to prevent someone from moving in with some undesirable feature and tanking an entire neighborhood's property values, which in many cases are homes that represent a large fraction of a lot of people's net worth (and retirement funds). Taken too far, this can lead to crazy NIMBYism that keeps anything from being built anywhere, but I don't think it's unreasonable to say "No, you can't put a landfill in the residential area that's been developed here for 150 years." Whether you think a 1000 ft. radio mast falls into that category is up for debate, but a full-on libertarian "I can do whatever I want wherever I want to" system wouldn't lead to very good outcomes.
    - wlesieutre 10y ago
      If you want to look at it from an quantitative perspective, say a developer wants to build that sewage plant. He scouts out a location, decides he can make 2 million bucks on this project, and starts building. Once it's finished and the neighborhood literally smells like shit, the value of 200 nearby houses each drops by $100k. It adds up to a total loss of 20 million dollars for the residents. The net effect being that the sewage plant developer has built a sewage plant, made $2MM, and destroyed $20MM of property values. If everyone is looking to make a buck and has no checks on what negative impacts they can have on nearby property owners, then schemes like that would be happening all the time. Government oversight of land use is a means for communities to prevent it.
    - belovedeagle 10y ago
      You were probably exaggerating, but "I can do whatever I want" is far from libertarian. Indeed, forbidding imposing uncompensated the externality of decreased land values in this situation is one of the defining aspects of libertarianism as opposed to, say, anarchism or socialism (where you pay a fee to the government - excuse me, the People's Party - to do whatever you want).
      - mannykannot 10y ago
        So who or what does the forbidding, and what would make the outcome different from anything that has ever happened in history before?
      - ZeroGravitas 10y ago
        You are correct, but I'd like to clarify that property rights on land is one of libertarianism's big things mostly because rich folk own a lot of land. They'll defend having a "big government" that'll commit violence to protect rich people's land and they'll pay for that with taxes that they would otherwise decry as theft at gunpoint. Contrast this with their general approach to industry dumping carbon or other pollution into the air and suggestions to price in those externalities.
        10y ago
mannykannot 10y ago
I am with you on the irrelevance of the proposed use, but with regard to the larger question, the government gets involved in settling disputes over private property because that's what maintains the concept and reality of private property - without it, everything is up for grabs all the time (see, for example, northern Iraq.)
tacostakohashi 10y ago
I trust you would have no problem with someone building a sewage treatment plan on the private property next to your house?
- pjlegato 10y ago
  I'm not taking a position, just pointing out that the post I replied to was not responsive to the original objection (which someone else wrote). Also, the post I wrote specifically states, "provided that it doesn't adversely impact anyone else." Building a sewage treatment plant next to your house would certainly adversely impact your life, so it doesn't fall under the parameters of the query at hand.
sgt101 10y ago
If it can be seen then that is an impact, if it casts shade that is an impact. If peoples livelihoods are damaged that is an impact. I think that is stealing. So, this is a community matter. So

wlesieutre 10y ago

I don't know what the land use laws are over there, but I can tell you that in the US, the government frequently gets to decide whether someone can build a radio tower on private property. I'm fairly certain if someone bought a plot of land near me and said "I'm building a 1000 ft. tall radio mast for stock trading" they'd be promptly told to fuck off. On the other hand, if a project is being built to provide a public benefit, say for an emergency radio system or something, then variances are more likely.

foota 10y ago
I don't think that answers they question of why the government should be able to do so.
- wlesieutre 10y ago
  A more extreme example to make a point: because it would be bad if someone could buy up the house next to me, knock it down, and replace it with a sewage plant. At least in the US, a large component of limiting land use is to prevent someone from moving in with some undesirable feature and tanking an entire neighborhood's property values, which in many cases are homes that represent a large fraction of a lot of people's net worth (and retirement funds). Taken too far, this can lead to crazy NIMBYism that keeps anything from being built anywhere, but I don't think it's unreasonable to say "No, you can't put a landfill in the residential area that's been developed here for 150 years." Whether you think a 1000 ft. radio mast falls into that category is up for debate, but a full-on libertarian "I can do whatever I want wherever I want to" system wouldn't lead to very good outcomes.
  - wlesieutre 10y ago
    If you want to look at it from an quantitative perspective, say a developer wants to build that sewage plant. He scouts out a location, decides he can make 2 million bucks on this project, and starts building. Once it's finished and the neighborhood literally smells like shit, the value of 200 nearby houses each drops by $100k. It adds up to a total loss of 20 million dollars for the residents. The net effect being that the sewage plant developer has built a sewage plant, made $2MM, and destroyed $20MM of property values. If everyone is looking to make a buck and has no checks on what negative impacts they can have on nearby property owners, then schemes like that would be happening all the time. Government oversight of land use is a means for communities to prevent it.
  - belovedeagle 10y ago
    You were probably exaggerating, but "I can do whatever I want" is far from libertarian. Indeed, forbidding imposing uncompensated the externality of decreased land values in this situation is one of the defining aspects of libertarianism as opposed to, say, anarchism or socialism (where you pay a fee to the government - excuse me, the People's Party - to do whatever you want).
    - mannykannot 10y ago
      So who or what does the forbidding, and what would make the outcome different from anything that has ever happened in history before?
    - ZeroGravitas 10y ago
      You are correct, but I'd like to clarify that property rights on land is one of libertarianism's big things mostly because rich folk own a lot of land. They'll defend having a "big government" that'll commit violence to protect rich people's land and they'll pay for that with taxes that they would otherwise decry as theft at gunpoint. Contrast this with their general approach to industry dumping carbon or other pollution into the air and suggestions to price in those externalities.
      - 10y ago

mannykannot 10y ago

I am with you on the irrelevance of the proposed use, but with regard to the larger question, the government gets involved in settling disputes over private property because that's what maintains the concept and reality of private property - without it, everything is up for grabs all the time (see, for example, northern Iraq.)

tacostakohashi 10y ago

I trust you would have no problem with someone building a sewage treatment plan on the private property next to your house?

pjlegato 10y ago
I'm not taking a position, just pointing out that the post I replied to was not responsive to the original objection (which someone else wrote). Also, the post I wrote specifically states, "provided that it doesn't adversely impact anyone else." Building a sewage treatment plant next to your house would certainly adversely impact your life, so it doesn't fall under the parameters of the query at hand.

sgt101 10y ago

If it can be seen then that is an impact, if it casts shade that is an impact. If peoples livelihoods are damaged that is an impact. I think that is stealing. So, this is a community matter. So