hank.walker@UNH.CS.CMU.EDU (08/10/86)
I think property ownership is similar to freedom of speech. One don't
have an absolute right to freedom of speech, because that may
interfere with the rights of others ("fire" in the theater). You
don't have any problem with that. Similarly, I think one doesn't have
an absolute right to do what one wants with property because that may
interfere with the rights of others. If we restrict ourselves to just
the property of others, it is obvious that ANYTHING you do to a piece
of property will have some influence on the value of my nearby
property. Some changes, such as kitchen remodeling, are small enought
to ignore. On the other hand, if you let your house look like a trash
heap, then this will bring down my property value. Now it is also the
case that if you develop some piece of forest next to my house, my
property values will fall. Therefore the situation is one of trading
off your rights to modify your property and my rights to be protected
from property-damaging effects of those modifications. There's no
black and white.
Property owners naturally want to be protected from property-damaging
effects. Hence we have zoning laws, housing codes, etc. The public
in general often feels that some perceived public good is more
important than some individual property rights, hence the California
Coastal Commission was created. If we had no controls, or minimal
controls, then we would really be relying on custom and vigilantism
rather than law. Anyone who did something with their property that
was too far out of line would find themselves the target for arson,
sabotage, or personal attack.
-------