Silicon Investor (SI) -- The First Internet Community

STOCKTALK

We've detected that you're using an ad content blocking browser plug-in or feature. Ads provide a critical source of revenue to the continued operation of Silicon Investor. We ask that you disable ad blocking while on Silicon Investor in the best interests of our community. If you are not using an ad blocker but are still receiving this message, make sure your browser's tracking protection is set to the 'standard' level.

Politics : Libertarian Discussion Forum -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: Dave Reed who wrote (2114)	3/11/1999 3:26:00 AM
From: Neocon	Respond to of 13060

Dave--- A reasoned post. I should say that I think that zoning regulations are correct in principle, like taxes, but that they should be as non- burdensome as possible, again like taxes. The presumption should be in favor of the property owner, to do as he pleases, and the rationale for regulation ought to be pretty serious. On the other hand, I would not merely draw the line at toxins and other hazards. For example, I think that it is reasonable to restrict certain neighborhoods to homes, and others to commercial enterprises, with occasional variances. With commercial establishments come increased traffic and noise, and thus a serious infringement on the adjacent properties. By the way, usually such decisions are settled, and are factored into the sale of a piece of property, as liabilities or enhancements of its value, just like good schools, well- tended roadways, or accessible shopping. In that sense, people are either paying for zoning protections, or discounting due to them. I agree that your friend's comment sounds fatuous on its face, and I am not keen on the anti- growth mentality, but after all she did move to the town for its charm, and if development caused that charm to disappear, her investment would have been wasted. I live in Annapolis, which has various things going for it, but which is especially dependent on its charm, both to attract home buyers, and to attract tourists. Many interests would suffer should it lose its charm. Thus, preservationist groups, as well as local government commissions, have a great deal of clout in keeping the downtown core charming. This includes not only preserving older buildings, but ensuring that new building is compatible with the ambience. Most people accept this sort of thing as being necessary, the arguments being over where to draw the line.

To: Dave Reed who wrote (2114)	3/11/1999 3:59:00 PM
From: MeDroogies	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 13060

I agree with much of this. Yet what you forget about the use of property rights in the situation you "disagreed" with me on is the term of "causes trespass". I, too, made mention of that issue at another point in time. Causes trespass implies infringement of another person's property rights. As such, legal action is required. However, that hardly constitutes zoning, and has NOTHING to do with an "anything goes" mentality. Rather, I was referring to the person who allows his house and property to fall apart. Some would say that because it lowers values in the neighborhood, that is "causing trespass". I say it isn't, because you are talking about investment value. If the stock market collapses due to poor management, do you have legal recourse? No. Why, then, should there be legal recourse in this situation? My response sufficed. Dave, you and I are not in disagreement at all. As for the "covenant", I addressed that elsewhere. Essentially, all laws are covenants. My problem with zoning is the complicated and indecipherable nature of the laws you "buy into". In fact, you buy into nothing, because there is too much there to analyze effectively before you make a purchase. My point about simplified zoning is that you can abdicate certain rights (by choice) in order to buy into a simplified situation. That doesn't require gov't owning land, nor does it require a covenant. It is purely simplification of the choice making process. Therefore, zoning won't infringe on property rights, because everyone bought into an understandable arrangement.....unlike current situations. I have been very clear about all of this. Neocon has tried to twist and alter the debate to suit his goals of appeasing "social goods" that are non-existent.