From: phil@netcom.com (Phil Ronzone)
Subject: Re: On the usefulness of ba.politics
Organization: Generally in favor of, but mostly random.
Distribution: ba
Date: Sat, 2 Jan 1993 10:26:50 GMT

In article <13753@optilink.COM> manley@optilink.COM (Terry Manley) writes:
    >In article <1992Dec30.080959.12043@netcom.com>
    >phil@netcom.com (Phil Ronzone) writes:
    >
    >>Either you believe: Any adult can with his/her property what
    >>he/she damn well pleases, provided there is no initian of
    >>coercion,
    >>
    >>Or you don't.
    >>
    >What do think of laws that restrict the development of
    >wetlands (on private property)? For example many farmers are
    >not allowed to drain/plow some part of crop lands they own.
    >The argument being the wetlands are required to support
    >migrating birds (among other things). If it can be shown that
    >by developing the wetland, the farmer will cause adverse
    >effects on bird populations, thereby denying hunters game, is
    >the farmer initiating coercion against the hunters? I assume
    >you think the farmer should compensated for not being able to
    >use his property - what should happen if the farmer then
    >refuses compensation and develops the wetland? What happens
    >if all the farmers in the central valley do so?

Well, this has been hashed out before.

First, I believe in extending riparin law to land and air use as well, not
just water. One of essential concepts of riparian law is the "use as it
exists". If you buy land with a river running through it, and someone down
stream is already using the water, you can't stop the "normal and expected"
flow without initiating coercion.

On the other hand, if you were there first, too bad.

This concept also extends to use that you implicitly grant -- such as letting
the water be used for years, and then shutting it off.

For example, that privately owned street leading to the Palo Alto park
that is for residents only is shut down one day a way to explicitly
maintain that it is a private (to the city of Palo Alto) street.

Note that I am talking about NEGATIVE impacts -- my initiating acts that
damage YOUR property. Air pollution is a good example -- I should leave the
air as it was when it flowed across my property (in terms of harmful
emissions).

However, your question of birds on my property -- first, if the birds are
YOURS, then get them off my property. You can't feed YOUR birds on MY
grain. If the birds are NOT yours, then you don't have a complaint.


This is known as POSITIVE impacts. Like, "gee, if you shut your business
down and move it to Mexico, we'll be hurt". What they are talking about
is ME removing MY factory -- in no way am I coercing THEIR property.

    >A related question: should a person be allowed to hunt
    >anytime on their own property? Should the state in any way
    >regulate hunting?

No, not on private property.


Now, how about that tree in Carmel that is wrecking a house foundation.
Owner wants to cut the tree down. Carmel [insert fascist city organization
name here] says no -- one "public official" said "The tree was there first!".


-- 
I believe Gennifer Flowers.

These opinions are MINE, and you can't have 'em! (But I'll rent 'em cheap ...)
Newsgroups: ba.politics