5 ms·

1. Have all these limitations been known to Sally when she bought her house? 2. Do Bob's rights change if someone builds a historic house next to his lot? Or i

1. Have all these limitations been known to Sally when she bought her house? 2. Do Bob's rights change if someone builds a historic house next to his lot? Or it would be fair to say that Bob came here first so everyone else may just gtfo?

vorpalhex 5y ago
That was sort of the purpose of making his lot so large in the hypothetical. But let's change it. Let's say Bob is running a rather large nuclear reactor. Initially this is fine - nobody is around him and nuclear power is very environmentally friendly. However, time goes on, and after a few years Bob and his large homemade nuclear reactor are surrounded by hundreds of brand new but very full preschools all bordering his property. Do we have a right to ask Bob to stop running his nuclear reactor? Situations change, risk models change. What was originally fine is now a hazard to other people.
- AlexTWithBeard 5y ago
  The ever-evading part of the brain responsible for ethics tells me that if safety models have changed - like they did for lead, for example - then yes, it's up to Bob to comply. If, on the other hand, I've built my house next to his plant and now started to complain about the proximity of a potentially dangerous thing next to me - well, in this case Bob was there first. And then there are all these questions for extra credit like what's gonna happen if Bob wants to put a second plant right next to his current one?
  - teachrdan 5y ago
    I think that's a great extra credit question. A real-life version is, Bob's reactor was scheduled to be shut down in a few years, but now he's applied to extend its lifespan by another 20 years. Should that be allowed? If so, are there any conditions under which he should NOT be allowed further extensions?
    - vorpalhex 5y ago
      The other set of questions we need to ask for this extension: 1. How many people depend on Bob's reactor for power? 2. If Bob shuts down, is the replacement something like solar or a coal plant? 3. Design/safety/longevity.
- JohnWhigham 5y ago
  Do we have a right to ask Bob to stop running his nuclear reactor? If it's the same entity that allowed those preschools to be built next to a nuclear reactor, then absolutely not.
- magila 5y ago
  There's a version of this which has actual played out several times in the US: Many motor racing tracks were built decades ago in what was at the time the middle of nowhere. Over time new developments sprung up around these tracks and their residents companied about the noise coming from the race cars. In practice the "we were here first" defense has proven rather weak as many such tracks have been forced to shut down.
  - BeFlatXIII 5y ago
    RIP to the Polaris Amphitheatre as well.
    - jcims 5y ago
      But now we have Top Golf!
  - AnthonyMouse 5y ago
    This seems like something that the market could address. The new neighbors could come together and buy out the racetrack. Take out a mortgage to turn it into an apartment building or something, then sell the building to pay off the mortgage. If the value to the neighbors of not having a racetrack there is at least as much as the value to the rest of the market of having a racetrack instead of an apartment building, this should be economically viable. If it isn't, isn't that a solid case for leaving the racetrack there?
    - lazyasciiart 5y ago
      Value and access to cash. I might value the end of the racetrack at $1million, but only be able to put up $20,000.
      - AnthonyMouse 5y ago
        What you're really getting at is that the end of the racetrack might increase property values by quite a lot, even if the existing residents don't have the money to make the investment. But then someone else could do it. Rich investor goes around to everyone in the neighborhood and offers to buy their house for $25,000 over market, contingent on enough people (including the racetrack) agreeing to sell to make it worth their while. Then if that many people sign up, they resell all the properties for a profit now that the racetrack is gone and all the property values have gone up by $50,000 each. The result is that the people who live there now might not be able to live there after, but that's only because the racetrack is the reason they can afford to live there now. Otherwise the property would have been more than they can afford from the start.

vorpalhex 5y ago

That was sort of the purpose of making his lot so large in the hypothetical. But let's change it. Let's say Bob is running a rather large nuclear reactor. Initially this is fine - nobody is around him and nuclear power is very environmentally friendly. However, time goes on, and after a few years Bob and his large homemade nuclear reactor are surrounded by hundreds of brand new but very full preschools all bordering his property. Do we have a right to ask Bob to stop running his nuclear reactor? Situations change, risk models change. What was originally fine is now a hazard to other people.

AlexTWithBeard 5y ago
The ever-evading part of the brain responsible for ethics tells me that if safety models have changed - like they did for lead, for example - then yes, it's up to Bob to comply. If, on the other hand, I've built my house next to his plant and now started to complain about the proximity of a potentially dangerous thing next to me - well, in this case Bob was there first. And then there are all these questions for extra credit like what's gonna happen if Bob wants to put a second plant right next to his current one?
- teachrdan 5y ago
  I think that's a great extra credit question. A real-life version is, Bob's reactor was scheduled to be shut down in a few years, but now he's applied to extend its lifespan by another 20 years. Should that be allowed? If so, are there any conditions under which he should NOT be allowed further extensions?
  - vorpalhex 5y ago
    The other set of questions we need to ask for this extension: 1. How many people depend on Bob's reactor for power? 2. If Bob shuts down, is the replacement something like solar or a coal plant? 3. Design/safety/longevity.
JohnWhigham 5y ago
Do we have a right to ask Bob to stop running his nuclear reactor? If it's the same entity that allowed those preschools to be built next to a nuclear reactor, then absolutely not.
magila 5y ago
There's a version of this which has actual played out several times in the US: Many motor racing tracks were built decades ago in what was at the time the middle of nowhere. Over time new developments sprung up around these tracks and their residents companied about the noise coming from the race cars. In practice the "we were here first" defense has proven rather weak as many such tracks have been forced to shut down.
- BeFlatXIII 5y ago
  RIP to the Polaris Amphitheatre as well.
  - jcims 5y ago
    But now we have Top Golf!
- AnthonyMouse 5y ago
  This seems like something that the market could address. The new neighbors could come together and buy out the racetrack. Take out a mortgage to turn it into an apartment building or something, then sell the building to pay off the mortgage. If the value to the neighbors of not having a racetrack there is at least as much as the value to the rest of the market of having a racetrack instead of an apartment building, this should be economically viable. If it isn't, isn't that a solid case for leaving the racetrack there?
  - lazyasciiart 5y ago
    Value and access to cash. I might value the end of the racetrack at $1million, but only be able to put up $20,000.
    - AnthonyMouse 5y ago
      What you're really getting at is that the end of the racetrack might increase property values by quite a lot, even if the existing residents don't have the money to make the investment. But then someone else could do it. Rich investor goes around to everyone in the neighborhood and offers to buy their house for $25,000 over market, contingent on enough people (including the racetrack) agreeing to sell to make it worth their while. Then if that many people sign up, they resell all the properties for a profit now that the racetrack is gone and all the property values have gone up by $50,000 each. The result is that the people who live there now might not be able to live there after, but that's only because the racetrack is the reason they can afford to live there now. Otherwise the property would have been more than they can afford from the start.