4 ms·

The common law of nuisance handled the negative externality situation just fine Isn't specific standards of property care, basically a more formal codification

by gascan 8y ago

The common law of nuisance handled the negative externality situation just fine Isn't specific standards of property care, basically a more formal codification of nuisance law? Subjective laws being a pain to apply consistently, I was under the impression we frequently did this- some objective rule is established under the rule of an existing subjective rule, to improve enforcement & fairness.

rayiner 8y ago
No, because for nuisance law you have to prove that failing to meet some standard is in fact causing interference with the use and enjoyment of your own property. "I don't like tall grass it looks ugly" is not a cognizable claim under nuisance law. Nor is "the tall grass might cause a rodent or insect problem that affects my property.* Under nuisance law you have to prove that actual harm exists, not merely the theoretical possibility.
- logfromblammo 8y ago
  I have literally seen in person the claim that grass tall enough for seedheads exacerbates grass pollen allergies. This was in a small town surrounded by farmland with some of the most fertile soil in the world. A person with grass pollen allergies would have to be a fool of the highest caliber to blame them on a neighbor's unmowed lawn rather than the wind blowing in from the sod farm, or the hay farm, or the wheat farm. Sometimes, I had to mow twice a week to keep the grass at a reasonable height. If I had a grass pollen allergy, I think maybe I could have been better off moving to Phoenix than becoming a lawn-height snitch--or as a UK person might put it, a grass grass.
  - your-nanny 8y ago
    excessive mowing, and perfectly manicured monocultured lawns are of negative ecological value. I think I ought to have grounds for complaint.
    - logfromblammo 8y ago
      As it happened, "reasonable height" was defined by town ordinance to be 12" or less. With sufficient rain, towards the end of summer, the grass could grow 2-3" per day. I never tried to stop other plants from growing. The grass kept itself a monoculture through sheer density. I have never seen its like since I moved away.
- gascan 8y ago
  Consider BAC. Technically, you're just not allowed to drive impaired. And different people function better or worse at the same BAC. But we have adopted a de-facto standard of 0.08%. The police don't prove in fact you were too impaired to drive, and posed a hazard to someone else. They just lock you up.
- kodablah 8y ago
  From the article: "Japan zones limit the “maximum nuisance" in a zone, and allow for any development below that threshold (e.g. a factory can’t be built in a residential neighborhood but housing can be built in a light industrial zone)." So, by this understanding, the author isn't completely correct and that if the factory is not a nuisance it can be built in a residential neighborhood and it has to be proven that the factory causes harm?
Spooky23 8y ago
No, because your failure to maintain damages others. I recently had to a file a code complaint because a landlord neighbor refuses to maintain his backyard, and out of control vegetation has damaged the fence, created a flood problem and is causing other nuisances.

by gascan 8y ago

rayiner 8y ago

No, because for nuisance law you have to prove that failing to meet some standard is in fact causing interference with the use and enjoyment of your own property. "I don't like tall grass it looks ugly" is not a cognizable claim under nuisance law. Nor is "the tall grass might cause a rodent or insect problem that affects my property.* Under nuisance law you have to prove that actual harm exists, not merely the theoretical possibility.

logfromblammo 8y ago
I have literally seen in person the claim that grass tall enough for seedheads exacerbates grass pollen allergies. This was in a small town surrounded by farmland with some of the most fertile soil in the world. A person with grass pollen allergies would have to be a fool of the highest caliber to blame them on a neighbor's unmowed lawn rather than the wind blowing in from the sod farm, or the hay farm, or the wheat farm. Sometimes, I had to mow twice a week to keep the grass at a reasonable height. If I had a grass pollen allergy, I think maybe I could have been better off moving to Phoenix than becoming a lawn-height snitch--or as a UK person might put it, a grass grass.
- your-nanny 8y ago
  excessive mowing, and perfectly manicured monocultured lawns are of negative ecological value. I think I ought to have grounds for complaint.
  - logfromblammo 8y ago
    As it happened, "reasonable height" was defined by town ordinance to be 12" or less. With sufficient rain, towards the end of summer, the grass could grow 2-3" per day. I never tried to stop other plants from growing. The grass kept itself a monoculture through sheer density. I have never seen its like since I moved away.
gascan 8y ago
Consider BAC. Technically, you're just not allowed to drive impaired. And different people function better or worse at the same BAC. But we have adopted a de-facto standard of 0.08%. The police don't prove in fact you were too impaired to drive, and posed a hazard to someone else. They just lock you up.
kodablah 8y ago
From the article: "Japan zones limit the “maximum nuisance" in a zone, and allow for any development below that threshold (e.g. a factory can’t be built in a residential neighborhood but housing can be built in a light industrial zone)." So, by this understanding, the author isn't completely correct and that if the factory is not a nuisance it can be built in a residential neighborhood and it has to be proven that the factory causes harm?

Spooky23 8y ago

No, because your failure to maintain damages others. I recently had to a file a code complaint because a landlord neighbor refuses to maintain his backyard, and out of control vegetation has damaged the fence, created a flood problem and is causing other nuisances.