wmartin@ALMSA-1.ARPA (08/21/86)
Lets consider this issue with a more direct and explicit example than the "next door house looking like a trash heap", which is pretty subjective and hard to quantify in monetary terms. Postulate this theoretical example: In a midwest seasonal climate, I live in a house on a city block. My next-door neighbor, to the south of me, has a large deciduous tree in his back yard. That tree provides shade to *my* house in the summer, reducing my cooling bills by a measurable and definite amount, and sheds its leaves in the winter, permitting solar gain to reduce my heating bills. Thus I gain a net benefit from this tree, which is not mine, not on my property, and which I expend no effort to maintain (the neighbor rakes the leaves and the ones that come over to my property are too few to consider). The configuration of the lots and buildings does not allow me to plant my own tree to my south; I can only get such a benefit from a tree on my neighbor's property. The presence of this tree does raise the property value of my house, but that is not something that can be well-measured when the house is not for sale. Let us consider only the yearly measurable energy-cost savings. Suppose my neighbor decides to cut this tree, not from any particular need (it is not diseased or damaged) but just because he wants it down; lets say he merely prefers a lawn with no tree in the middle. What "rights", if any, do I have in this situation? My neighbor's action on his own property with regard to his own goods (he owns the tree) will have a specific financial impact upon me. His cutting down that tree will cost me $X per year out-of-pocket in greater energy costs. Am I entitled to claim that from him? To sue him for compensation? How would this situation be treated by the various political systems advocated by the discussion participants on this net? What, if anything, would be different if the effect were similar in form but greater in consequence? For example, my neighbor builds a large building on his property that cuts off all sunlight from reaching my land most of the day, and this destroys my greenhouse-gardening business, which is my livelihood? Or he builds or grows something that cuts off my line-of-sight to a geosynchronous satellite, which I require to conduct my business? Would the situation be different if I was there first, or if he was there first? Do I have any "rights" that the surrounding property remain unchanged, if I was there first (say, living on property passed down through my family, while the neighboring land was just bought by someone who decides to change it as described above). Or the reverse -- let's say I bought this property because the surroundings were arranged in a pleasing fashion, and those long-time property owners made these changes that affected me after I moved in? Do property rights "grow" stronger with length of residence or tenancy? (Some legal rights DO change this way -- the length of a live-in relationship can make it a common-law marriage in some states, right?) Comments on theoretical rights vs. practical or legal rights would also be welcomed in this context. Regards, Will Martin wmartin@ALMSA-1.ARPA (on USENET try ...!seismo!wmartin@ALMSA-1.ARPA) -------
Hibbert.pa@XEROX.COM (08/25/86)
To: Will Martin -- AMXAL-RI <wmartin@ALMSA-1.ARPA> You can offer to pay him to not cut the tree down. If you've got a greenhouse, you can offer to make a contract to protect your access to the sun. Length of residence doesn't seem important to me, but other libertarians disagree on this point. One point of view is that the first devoloper of a resource gains some property rights in it. This implies that later-comers must buy the rights to build a skyscraper that would block the light from someone who is depending on access to the light. I'm not sure which of these views I'd rather defend, but I don't see this as a weakness that completely rebuts my position. I guess this is one of the things that pushes me toward a minarchist position (minimal government to adjudicate property rights is okay. That's versus the anarchist view that says that governments can only accomplish things with stolen money (taxes), and so they are immoral.) Chris -------