4 ms·
inetknght it looks like we hit the flame war reply limit. Only thing i'd like to respond to is that my view has nothing to do with making money or using the ho
by showerst 4y ago
inetknght it looks like we hit the flame war reply limit.
Only thing i'd like to respond to is that my view has nothing to do with making money or using the house as a business. Whether the house is worth the same, more, less than I bought it for is irrelevant to the question of if I am suffering financial harm from my neighbor's action.
If you do something that costs people money, then you make them whole, whether in occurs on your property or not, and whether they're in a mansion in the hills or a 500sf 1br condo.
I agree that houses shouldn't be investments and our current system is crazy, but it's completely orthogonal to the point at hand, except in the case of pushing more Karen types to take their financial stresses out on their neighbors =P.
- inetknght 4y ago> If you do something that costs people money, then you make them whole, whether in occurs on your property or not By that logic, you're costing me money simply by owning land instead of me, or by working for yourself instead of for me. I demand you make me whole! /s No, that logic does not hold up to the reality that people matter and that different people have different opinions about what to lawfully do on their own property. That inherent difference is fundamentally what is at discussion here. I argue that it is effectively impossible to hold your neighbors' (and their properties) responsible for your own properties value unless you can demonstrate problems with safety or the environment.