More of "what's your's IS mine - the Right to Private Property - Granite Grok

More of “what’s your’s IS mine – the Right to Private Property

Over at the Anti-Planner is a continuation of the display of communitarianism that I’ve written about concerning the Hathaway House in Laconia (here and here).  His story is not about a building but a tree that his neighbors seem to believe that they should have more say about the disposition of that tree than the owner has (reformatted, emphasis mine)…and, oh yeah, the blogger he references merely rents and is not an owner in the neighborhood:

That’s right, trees. Specifically, I want to talk about the decision made by a Somerville neighbor of mine to fell an old, beautiful, and perfectly healthy tree because it was “in the way” of his backyard improvement project — in the process adversely affecting the quality of life for me and several of my neighbors. Is it crazy or un-American to suggest that, at a certain point, a tree is no longer one person’s private property per se, and belongs to the community? And at that point, should the property owner be restricted as to what he or she may do with said tree?

No, it is not crazy to suggest it – merely that you are trying to rationalize that, deep down, you have no problem in being a thief without admitting it. 

Right.  I buy it, I take care of it, I want to do something with it, but you get to tell me what I am “allowed to do with it” out of the blue?  I have title to the land and the stuff on it – and you don’t.  No legal hold do you have – but you insist that you should have more say than I?

…Again I was angry, but what saved me from all-out rage was the fact that directly behind this tree, in the next yard over, diagonal to mine and belonging to a man on Appleton Street, was the Big Tree. The Appleton Street tree must have been close to a hundred years-old, and had one of those great, wide canopies that was just beautiful to look at. It gave definition to the entire neighborhood, and the birds and squirrels loved it. Removal of the smaller tree over the garage was perhaps unfortunate, but so long as the Big Tree was still there, things weren’t too terribly changed.

Until this past weekend, that is, when I woke to the sound of chainsaws. The guy on Appleton decided it was time for the Big Tree to go.  In a matter of a few hours’ work, the entire thing was gone.  The tree was not sick; the homeowner destroyed it, I learned second-hand, because it was “in the way” of a work-shed he wants to build in his yard.  The whole aesthetic of the block now is changed — for the worse. Suddenly when I look out the back of my house to where this fantastic tree used to be, there’s just empty sky and the rear facades of the neighbors’ houses. The lighting, view, the feel… everything is different.  And he had every right to do this, apparently, which surprises me. How, in what is supposed to be such a progressive-thinking city with such a strong sense of community, can there be no zoning rules or other restrictions when it comes to cutting down trees?

I don’t know the blogger – it seems that he is more of an “pilot blogger” than a political one.  But if this post is any indication, he’s whining “Why isn’t Government protecting MY rights over the property owner’s rights?”  No offer to buy “the development rights” (the favorite tactic to remove stuff from the evil reach of capitalism), no offer to pay for NOT “developing a shed”.  How about this – what about offering to buy the tree and the land it sits on outright – then you’d own it and the right to do with it as you wished – including NOT cutting it down.  Perhaps a bit “different” on “scale”, but consider an analogous example here in the hilly area where I live.  A person I know bought an empty lot that was downhill from one that already had a home on it and built a rather large home on it.  The existing “higher up” homeowner went ballistic that he had lost his view of twenty years due to the newcomer; I did not help his demeanor when I dryly mentioned that he had had the same opportunity my friend had in purchasing that lot (and I knew he had the wherewithal to do it, too).  He just felt that he had the right, the entitlement, to that view even though he did not own that lot.

There is one word that sums it up nicely: selfishness.

I complained to Rebekah Gewirtz, the alderperson for the Somerville ward in which I live. Gewirtz explained that several years ago she was able to put through a tree preservation ordinance protecting shade trees — but the rules cover only those on public property.  “It was difficult to pass at the time and there was push back from other aldermen,” Gewirtz says. “At one point during the deliberations I suggested we also broaden the ordinance to cover healthy shade tress on private property. This idea at the time was dismissed out of hand by several of my colleagues who felt the city shouldn’t tell private owners what to do with trees on their property.”  So, ultimately this is a debate about private property. But what is private property?

The Right to Private Property IS one of the pillars of Freedom.  Look at any society where that Right has been illegally revoked – it doesn’t stay Free for very long. Really – you HAVE to ask “But what is private property?“, I would have to say:

  • you have shown that the public morality is being shredded
  • you are envious of what someone else owns (which proves you DO know what is private property)
  • you don’t respect that other person AT ALL
  • you have already crossed the Rubicon separating Wrong from Right

If you can or allowed to take any of my property from me, what will be the next thing you will take?  This IS a slippery slope – it will only be a (short) amount of time until the next firewall is breached.  And he makes no bones about it – that his personal needs and wants should come before that of the owner.

I am all for the rights of property owners to do more or less as they please — to a point. And that point is when an owner’s decision directly and adversely impacts the quality of life of those around him. Quality of life is subjective, of course, but in this case criteria ought to include everything from the view out of peoples’ windows, to the ecological health of the neighborhood, to the potential impact on property values. When that point is reached, there needs at least to be a discussion.

Remodeling a rear porch is a bureaucratic headache that takes several days to sort out. But a guy can, at his whim, alter the look and feel of a whole neighborhood, with no accountability at all? How do the property rights advocates who dismissed Gewirtz’s proposal “out of hand” square with that (other than to invoke the expected clause that anything in the name of safety is fair game and tops all other concerns)?

Communitarianism is the philosophy that believes everything is embued with a sense of Collectivism – and this example shows that these type of folks really do not believe in Private Property.  If I own something, either I own it or I do not.  When I purchased it, nothing in the Purchase and Sales agreement gives anyone else any kind of control over my property “after the fact” (unless I have agreed to any covenants contained in that P&S).  No one should even think otherwise “after the fact” unless their name is on the deed, the P&S, and paying for that item.

…But this isn’t about the irrational or emotional inclinations of a “tree-hugger,” or about the pushing of some environmentalist agenda on others. It’s about common sense, decency, and basic respect for both nature and community.  I think. Perhaps I’m wrong. In other words, a person has the right to do whatever he or she wishes, so long as it doesn’t infringe on the rights of somebody else. And unfortunately, nobody has the legal right to a view.

Yes, it is, and your sense of “common sense”  is more grounded in commonality / collectivism than sense.  Unless one specifically agrees to it in advance, I know very few people who would agree to what this guy wants.  Here is the basic problem and he gives it to us: “so long as it doesn’t infringe on the rights of somebody else”.  He, and others like him, have decided that they DO have rights over someone else’s property at the snap of their fingers.  As far as I’m concerned, this pilot has no rights at all to that tree or in what the owner decided to do with it – none, nada, zilch, nil.  Saying that you do means nothing even though you have convinced yourself you do.

Sadly, I see the same kind of arguments in the Northern Pass controversy here in NH.  My take?  If you own the land, you have the right to tell the NP folks to take a hike – you don’t have to allow that kind of building (high tension wiring from Canada through NH).  But I can’t stand the whining of the folks who have complained “Oh, it will ruin my view!”.  Sorry, but the Right to Private Property trumps your view.  If your neighbor has sold out to those folks for a right of way, well, that’s how capitalism works – you had your chance to buy it earlier.

Look, I’m all good with the use of Government to pass laws that limited the use of eminent domain – never should rent-seekers be allowed to use Government to take lands from one private owner to give to another private owner.  Period.  But the flip side should also be true – that Government should not used to keep a private entity to enter into a contract to buy another private entity’s property either.

…Comments to this story seem to be harping on the fact that I’m a renter and not an owner; that neither property involved in this story belongs to me. I fail to see how or why that matters in the greater context of my argument. It feels to me like a loophole-ish way of invalidating my points. – PS

asdf

>