4 ms·
I disagree. You buy a house in a given location based on its current or future properties ( say, relative silence of the surroundings ). If that property is alt
by A4ET8a8uTh0 6y ago
I disagree. You buy a house in a given location based on its current or future properties ( say, relative silence of the surroundings ). If that property is altered in a way that does not benefit you, it could affect their property rights.
For the record, I think library is a good thing, net-wise. I understand their line of reasoning though.
- katbyte 6y agoBy this reasoning nothing should ever change ever lest someone’s property rights be infringed?
- A4ET8a8uTh0 6y agoWell, that is basically why, as a society, we have devised ways to deal with disagreements over the nature of what should be. In US that does mean civil suits if all else fails. Not to search very far, in Colorado neighbors sued for lowered property values due to marijuana smell from dispensary. For better or worse, US property values do make a powerful argument for people to take their rights rather seriously.
- burkaman 6y ago> it could affect their property rights. I don't think "rights" extend that far. That's like saying if you buy stock in a company and then a competitor does something to drive the price down, that's violating your property rights. It's a reasonable thing to discuss and bring up at a meeting, but it's not an issue of property rights.
- A4ET8a8uTh0 6y agoYes, and note how many laws are on the books ( and how many scams exist ) that deal with falsely inflating and deflating the value. It is absolutely a property rights issue. Just because it seems minute to you does not make it less of a right.
- burkaman 6y agoI feel very strongly that value and rights are not the same thing. Nobody has a right to future value. You have a right to own stuff, and a right to speak freely about how you think the world should be, but you don't have a right to your investment paying off.
- A4ET8a8uTh0 6y agoI think agree with statement as written. That said, what happens when bad actors conspire to artificially lower/increase the value? Or are you arguing laissez-faire?
- joshuamorton 6y agoIf we take this in the other direction, if I purchase a house on a lake, and you build a company that dumps toxic waste into that lake, should I not have some recourse? The idea here being that there is an externality to your toxic waste dumping (both in terms of property values and the environmental/health consequences, potentially). You the dumper don't bear that cost, your neighbors do, even though the action is entirely your fault and, importantly, there's nothing your neighbors can do to prevent you from dumping the waste.
- himinlomax 6y agoHaving a pig farm setup shop next to your property reduces the market value significantly. Having a library does not, quite the opposite. Property should be protected by law so that people are not deprived of it, but it does not follow that owning property gives you the right to be capricious.
- A4ET8a8uTh0 6y agoIt is a good argument, but it does not apply. Their complaint is about the increased noise-level, which, as far as humans go, we can agree it can become bothersome. We typically disagree over how much and when is too much, but noise absolutely affects property values and potential resale. Take me for example, I did not purchase a place by highway. Extreme example, but same principle applies.
- himinlomax 6y agoAren't library the place where you're precisely not supposed to make any noise?
- A4ET8a8uTh0 6y agoI genuinely chuckled. That is for the inside of the library. In their case, I think they were referring to noise from cars ( people dropping off kids -- this is America after all ), gatherings and so on.
- danbolt 6y agoI've never been so yearning for Japanese-style federal zoning laws in North America until the past year.
- TomSwirly 6y agoPeople are far, far, far, far, far too entitled.