We're doomed

[Len Budney]

The founding fathers did not need to worry about zoning...

No, they had bigger fish to fry. Like a penny-stamp on official documents. You know, big Big BIIIIG, life-and-death sorts of issues. They started a damn war over a penny-stamp, but the real reason they fought that war was to win the right to dictate the color of the neighbor's fence.

Sheesh.

--Len.



* And yes, I realize that the Stamp Act didn't always involve a penny. A penny was the cost of a stamp for a one-page news-sheet. It ranged all the way up to ten pounds sterling, for a stamp on an attorney's license. A deck of playing cards required a one-shilling stamp. It was, in the prices of the day, chickenfeed.

[Euclidean]

You know what, screw Wal Mart.  Let's get back to the central premise of the thread.

We're doomed.  (Language, NSFW.)

[Paddy]

Disclaimer: I've lived in "historic" Deerfield, Mass, where one can't fix a broken window without permission from the zoning board. I've lived in Connecticut neighborhoods where zoning laws forced us to get rid of our pony, to change the color of our home, to tear down a shed and put up a fence, and all manner of other tom-foolery. I currently live in a duplex near Pittsburgh, which the town intends to rezone "single family," so that one false move on my part will result in the forcible eviction of my tenant and the loss of needed income. Zoning is not simply a theoretical concern for me.

That sounds more like CCR's Conditions, Covenants and Restrictions than municipal zoning.  CCR's are common  with housing tracts.  When you buy in that tract, you agree to the CCR's.  They may prohibit you from parking a motorhome in front of your house.  Or having a non operable car jacked up on blocks in your front yard.  Or even leaving your trash cans out on the curb more than a day after pickup.  That sort of thing.  CCR's maintain a standard for the neighborhood and help protect the value of everyone's property.  They're mutually beneficial.

Municipal zoning laws are intended to define the use of a given area.  Residential, commercial, industrial, agriculture, etc.  Say you live in a neighborhood with, what, 10k -12k sq ft lots.  You neighbor decides he wants to start a pig farm, complete with slaughterhouse and smokehouse.  You're about to be subjected to pig *expletive deleted*it stink to high heaven, constant squealing and oinking, that wonderful slaughterhouse smell,(complete with the rotting entrail and tallow odor), and air pollution from the smokehouse.  You wouldn't want that, would you?   That's why there are zoning laws, there is really no other way to prevent that kind of thing.

[Len Budney]

Disclaimer: I've lived in "historic" Deerfield, Mass, where one can't fix a broken window without permission from the zoning board. I've lived in Connecticut neighborhoods where zoning laws forced us to get rid of our pony, to change the color of our home, to tear down a shed and put up a fence, and all manner of other tom-foolery. I currently live in a duplex near Pittsburgh, which the town intends to rezone "single family," so that one false move on my part will result in the forcible eviction of my tenant and the loss of needed income. Zoning is not simply a theoretical concern for me.

That sounds more like CCR's Conditions, Covenants and Restrictions than municipal zoning.

Perhaps, but in this case it's the zoning board that drives the silliness. If your neighborhood is ever declared "historic," RUN!

You're about to be subjected to pig *expletive deleted*it stink to high heaven, constant squealing and oinking, that wonderful slaughterhouse smell,(complete with the rotting entrail and tallow odor), and air pollution from the smokehouse.  You wouldn't want that, would you?   That's why there are zoning laws, there is really no other way to prevent that kind of thing.

There ARE other ways, though. In the example you mention, noise, smell and smoke are (in a just society) actionable invasions of the neighbors' property anyway. In 19th-century America, you could sue a factory for depositing soot on your property. When the industrial revolution swung into high gear, courts stopped upholding that property right. But there the polluter is the aggressor, so stopping him is not initiation of aggression.

That would apply to the Walmart as well, if it were putting out soot, or excessive noise, or otherwise interfering with the neighbors' property.

--Len.

[Paddy]

It takes time and money to adjudicate it, though. Litigation could go on months or even years. In the meantime your property value has plummeted. (There's an example of theft.  Your neighbor doing his own thang on his 'own' land robs you of your equity) And you'd still have to go to a court-a government agency backed by police powers.  That court would have to be supported somehow, if not by taxes, then by user fees.  I wouldn't want to pay court costs by the hour, would you?

Isn't it just simpler and more equitable to mutually decide on zoning standards? (Mutually means representative government).

[Manedwolf]

Perhaps, but in this case it's the zoning board that drives the silliness. If your neighborhood is ever declared "historic," RUN!

I will agree with that. The Bedford Historic District near me is quite like that. Beautiful 1740 barns, colonial mansions and merchants' houses and all, but the people who live there can't even change their mind without a board-approved permit.

[Len Budney]

It takes time and money to adjudicate it, though. Litigation could go on months or even years. In the meantime your property value has plummeted. (There's an example of theft...)

Technically you don't own your "property value"; just your property. "Property value" is just someone else's willingness to pay, and you can't own someone else's opinions.

But your overall point is sound: it can take a long time to litigate. Even if dispute-resolution were privatized, as it should be, I'm willing to assume that conflict-resolution can take a while--especially if the neighbor is doing his best to stall the process. On the other hand:

1) Ultimately, when he loses, he will (in a just society) be liable for all of your costs, including repair of any damage to your property, legal expenses, lost time, etc., with interest.

2) In a genuinely free society, he will have difficulty stalling the process, because your respective insurance providers will be involved. Among other things, the violator will be dropped by his insurer, leaving him vulnerable to significant losses. Reputable suppliers of pig-farmers would cut off his business, partly because he isn't insured, and partly because they don't want the bad press of being associated with a disreputable customer and a public nuisance; etc.

3) An ongoing threat can be stopped forcibly. Depending on the exact nature of the nuisance, your respective security agencies will compel him to stop, at least pending resolution of the suit.

So the problem is real, but not I think unsolvable. On the flip side, the statutory approach doesn't prevent someone from attempting to operate a pig-farm or a smoke-house. The only difference is that the guns come out much sooner: armed police become the first resort instead of the last resort.

--Len.

[BrokenPaw]

I'm going to have to agree with Riley on this; by incorporating as a city (and as I understand it, this happened before Walmart bought the land), the people of the town voluntarily chose to place limitations upon themselves, including imposing zoning restrictions and what-have-you.  They set up a zoning plan that allowed for businesses up to 150k square feet (again, as I understand it, this regulation was put in place before Walmart bought the land).  These regulations became a matter of public record.

Then Walmart bought the land, either knowing in advance about the restrictions, or committing the crime of epic stupidity in not performing due diligence in researching the restrictions on the land.

Now, they have the land, which they bought while it was already under the restrictions they're now unhappy about.

This is not like youths "voluntarily" robbing a liquor store, Len.  This is like a town enacting laws prohibiting the sale of alcohol, some nitwit buying a shop in the town, and then complaining when he can't get a permit to sell alcohol, something that is and was already prohibited by local code before he even got there.

This is the free market; Walmart was not required to buy that land.  The town, collectively, has said that they do not want businesses larger than a particular size.  They have made that choice, and they must deal with the consequences of that choice, in terms of the economic impact of either having or not having this many jobs and that many cheap goods.

There is no victim here.  Walmart bought a bed that was too small to sleep in, in full knowledge of exactly how big it was, and now they're bitching to the manufacturer for making a too-small bed, rather than thumping their own foreheads and saying, "Golly, I sure am a dumb-arse for paying good money for something too small to hold my big self."

-BP

[Euclidean]

The other problem with the "zoning (and similar statutes) by regulation" approach is that it gives the government direct control over private property.  The historical neighborhood is perhaps the best example of why this needs to be avoided at all costs.

So far in this example I've referred to the reality that in every city or town I've ever seen or heard of, exceptions to these rules are invariably issued, usually in significant quantity, or in some cases changed to be more generous due to political or financial pressure.  So let's turn my argument that Wal Mart is probably asking for something reasonable that other parties have probably received around: you could say that just means entities with the stroke and funds to defy these regulations will inevitably get what they want.

The rub here is that if the Wal Mart does get this exception, and I still think they probably will even if it takes time, it means there's nothing anybody can do about it.  Your "zoning by regulation" would in fact have worked against you.

With the "I'll sue your butt off" approach, action could be brought against the Wal Mart now, after it was built, and after it tried to expand.  The way it is now, if Wal Mart wins what it wants, that's it, it's over.

Of course the way I look at it, is that that the purpose of these zoning laws isn't any sort of urban planning for any benign thing whatsoever, the purpose is to be able to extort and fine property owners to raise money for the government.  They want business owners and the like to have to grease their palms before they open shop, which imho is what's happening here.

[BrokenPaw]

If you don't like the zoning laws in a particular city or town, don't buy there.  Simple.

I'm not particularly fond of Homeowner's Associations.  But back in 1999 I found a house that was moderately acceptable on piece of land that was phenomenal, by DC-area standards.  And it was cheap.  And it was part of an HOA, with applicable covenants.  I didn't have to buy.  But I looked at the bylaws of the HOA, and I realized that the "want" that the land gave me was bigger than the "do not want" that the HOA covenants gave me.  So I bought, and in so doing bound myself to those covenants.

If I'd found those covenants too onerous to bear, I could have used my free-market dollars to purchase elsewhere.  But having purchased here, I would have no basis to claim victim-hood if I suddenly decided I wished to raise pigs, and ran afoul of the "no livestock" rule I agreed to when I bought.

This situation in Riley's town is no different.

-BP

[Len Budney]

I'm going to have to agree with Riley on this; by incorporating as a city (and as I understand it, this happened before Walmart bought the land), the people of the town voluntarily chose to place limitations upon themselves...

That's the point: there's no problem putting limitations on themselves. But that's not what they're doing. They're putting limitations on others.

This is the free market; Walmart was not required to buy that land.

The problem is that, having bought it, they don't really own it.

--Len.

[BrokenPaw]

This is the free market; Walmart was not required to buy that land.

The problem is that, having bought it, they don't really own it.

Perhaps.  But if so, then they were awfully stupid to have paid money for it, and they're suffering the consequences of that stupidity.

None of these restrictions were sprung on Walmart after the sale; all of them were in place and a matter of public record before a penny changed hands.

-BP

[Paddy]

Technically you don't own your "property value"; just your property. "Property value" is just someone else's willingness to pay, and you can't own someone else's opinions.

The value is inherent in the land; one must have the other; they are inseparable.  In this case, your neighbor's actions, and only your neighbor's actions have negatively affected 'someone else's opinions' and hence your value.

1) Ultimately, when he loses, he will (in a just society) be liable for all of your costs, including repair of any damage to your property, legal expenses, lost time, etc., with interest.

You're assuming he has the ability to 'make you whole' as it were.  He may not have a pot to piss in, or he may do an OJ and hide any assets leaving you to eat your losses.  Pre-emption would have prevented that.

2) In a genuinely free society, he will have difficulty stalling the process, because your respective insurance providers will be involved. Among other things, the violator will be dropped by his insurer, leaving him vulnerable to significant losses. Reputable suppliers of pig-farmers would cut off his business, partly because he isn't insured, and partly because they don't want the bad press of being associated with a disreputable customer and a public nuisance; etc.

Again, he may not care.  He might have the property mortgaged to the hilt and simply walk away from it, leaving the mess for someone else to clean up at their expense.  In the meantime, you're suffering right next door.

3) An ongoing threat can be stopped forcibly. Depending on the exact nature of the nuisance, your respective security agencies will compel him to stop, at least pending resolution of the suit.

A 'security agency' is a private entity.  Under what authority would/could they employ force to stop him?

[Len Budney]

This is the free market; Walmart was not required to buy that land.

The problem is that, having bought it, they don't really own it.

Perhaps.  But if so, then they were awfully stupid to have paid money for it, and they're suffering the consequences of that stupidity.

You have a point as to tactics, perhaps. The same could be said in many situations: for example, buying a home next door to racists might be an unwise idea for a black man. But that doesn't make it right.

--Len.

[Len Budney]

Technically you don't own your "property value"; just your property. "Property value" is just someone else's willingness to pay, and you can't own someone else's opinions.

The value is inherent in the land; one must have the other; they are inseparable.

Quite the contrary. Economic value is purely subjective. If we all became franciscan friars tomorrow, diamonds would be valueless.

1) Ultimately, when he loses, he will (in a just society) be liable for all of your costs, including repair of any damage to your property, legal expenses, lost time, etc., with interest.

You're assuming he has the ability to 'make you whole' as it were.  He may not have a pot to piss in, or he may do an OJ and hide any assets leaving you to eat your losses.  Pre-emption would have prevented that.

That's a problem under the current system as well. If a dirt-poor man burns down your house, you get nothing but the satisfaction of seeing him tasered and jailed. That does indeed happen, but it isn't the fault of liberty.

A 'security agency' is a private entity.  Under what authority would/could they employ force to stop him?

An agency hired by me is my agent (indeed, as the name implies). If I can shoot in self-defense, I can hire someone else to act as my agent, shooting in my defense. It's legal for him to shoot exactly when it's legal for me to shoot; and it's murder for him to shoot exactly when it's murder for me to shoot. So if the neighbor is threatening my life with his toxic smoke or whatever, I can demand that he stop--and can use lethal force to make him stop. My security agency can do the same, because they're simply doing, as my agents, what I have a right to do.

In a free society with privatized law, due process comes into the picture naturally. I can shoot in self-defense, but the neighbors might think I'm committing murder and return fire. Since I don't want a feud or a war, I have to take care that when I'm using deadly force in self-defense, others will realize that and not deal with me as if I were the aggressor. The security agency would therefore notify the neighbor's security agency before stepping on his property, to forestall him reporting them as trespassers and starting an incident between the two agencies. The neighbor's agency would demand some kind of evidence, or might simply send its own people to check things out. In all likelihood, the man's own agency would either make him stop, or else inform him that they will not defend him when my agency comes to shut down his toxic smoke.

--Len.

[BrokenPaw]

Perhaps.  But if so, then they were awfully stupid to have paid money for it, and they're suffering the consequences of that stupidity.

You have a point as to tactics, perhaps. The same could be said in many situations: for example, buying a home next door to racists might be an unwise idea for a black man. But that doesn't make it right.

Doesn't make what right?  Racism?  No, of course it doesn't.  But, bottom line:  The racist was there first, and therefore was (or at least should have been) part and parcel of the equation when deciding whether to buy.  In such a situation, the hypothetical black man has three basic options:  Don't buy into a situation he knows will end poorly; buy in spite of potentially adversarial conditions and make the best of it; or, buy in spite of potentially adversarial conditions and then stomp his feet and make a big political ruckus about how awful his living conditions are with a racist next door.

Which decision he makes is of course up to him, but option three seems to be the least fruitful.

I seem to recall something about "coming to the nuisance" mentioned in unsuccessful cases where people were trying to force a [shooting range/pig farm/sewage plant] to shut down, because it was offending one or more of their sensibilities by having the gall to have been there for several years before they moved to a house right next door.

-BP

[mtnbkr]

The sky is blue, water is wet.

Discuss.

Chris

[K Frame]

The sky is blue only becuse you have been told, and conditioned, to believe it is so.

Water is wet because you have been told, and conditioned, to believe it is so.

You are nothing more than an unthinking tool of "da man."

[mtnbkr]

No, you're wrong because I reject your reality and substitute my own.

Chris

[Manedwolf]

The sky is blue,

Say no to the Rayleigh effect! It discriminates against other colors! 

water is wet

Ban dihydrogen monoxide! 

[Len Budney]

No, you're wrong because I reject your reality and substitute my own.

Perception plays a part, I guess, in subjective notions like "blue" and "justice." Our Muslim friends consider rape to be acceptable under many conditions--even a way of administering justice. In cases where rape is wrong, the family handles it quietly by killing the victim.

Many Muslims think that's just dandy--the same way a fish thinks water is air.

--Len.

[Manedwolf]

No, you're wrong because I reject your reality and substitute my own.

Perception plays a part, I guess, in subjective notions like "blue" and "justice." Our Muslim friends consider rape to be acceptable under many conditions--even a way of administering justice. In cases where rape is wrong, the family handles it quietly by killing the victim.

Many Muslims think that's just dandy--the same way a fish thinks water is air.

--Len.

WTF did that come from? Non-sequitur much?

[Len Budney]

No, you're wrong because I reject your reality and substitute my own.

Perception plays a part, I guess, in subjective notions like "blue" and "justice." Our Muslim friends consider rape to be acceptable under many conditions--even a way of administering justice. In cases where rape is wrong, the family handles it quietly by killing the victim.

WTF did that come from? Non-sequitur much?

One person thinks zoning regulations, say, are the most reasonable idea in the world. Another regards them as blatant injustice. Mtnbkr suggests that one or the other of those persons is "rejecting reality and substituting his own," as a followup to Mike saying that water is only wet because one is "conditioned to believe it so." The general tenor of the remarks is suggestive that someone on this thread is rejecting objective facts in favor of a congenial delusion. That's a standard theme when conservatives talk about liberals, because liberals do exactly that all the time--for example, when they imagine that we can socialize medicine, or hand out welfare, or "give peace a chance," without running into brick walls like human nature, the law of supply and demand, etc.

On a broader level, Mtnbkr and Mike are broaching the relationship of the subjective and objective.

I both address the issue, and keep my remarks on topic, by pointing out that the issue of "justice" is the core of this thread--and "justice" is highly subjective. Throughout human history the strangest, nastiest things have been deemed "just." To cite one example, authorities in Muslim countries actually sentence women to be raped--and in other cases regard rape as a crime, but punish only the victim. To them, this is "justice."

In the same way, many Americans think it "just" to rob others of their property rights. And not only do we think it "just"; we think it so self-evidently and objectively just, that someone calling it "unjust" is thought to be as crazy as if he said the sky were pink. Thus a subjective view becomes an objective "fact" beyond dispute or even discussion.

That's fascinating on several levels. Mainly, it's interesting because it enables one side to defend its views simply be declaring them to be facts. Every society has its "facts," and disputing those "facts" is not only dangerous, it's unthinkable. You can learn a lot about a culture by noticing what it considers unthinkable. It's also deliciously ironic. It's especially interesting when conservatives do it, because most conservatives identify strongly with the Framers, and the Framers would react to things like zoning laws by tarring and feathering the perpetrators. So conservatives resort to incredible contortions to support things that Jefferson would have had them hanged for, while claiming to be Jeffersonians.

--Len.

[BrokenPaw]

Len,

You've wandered afield.

No one is saying that it would be right to walk up to someone and say, "remember those rights you had when you bought this property?  Well, they're gone, because we've invented new restrictions while you weren't looking."

What people are saying is: people can place covenants and deed restrictions on properties they own as a condition of sale. If at a later time someone else purchases that property, those covenants and deed restrictions are part of what is purchased, and so it is up to the buyer to determine whether the property, and all of its restrictions, is worth the price.

If the property is not worth the price because it carries restrictions that are onerous, then the buyer doesn't have to buy.

Different.
-BP

[Len Budney]

What people are saying is: people can place covenants and deed restrictions on properties they own as a condition of sale.

The owner can. Nobody else can, including folks who claim they can because they're the "government."

--Len.