IT’S NOT JUST BIG BROTHER THAT OFTEN DISRESPECTS PROPERTY RIGHTS
An article on the front page of the February 13, 2003 edition of The Altamont Enterprise relates the hassle that resulted from a lady requesting a variance that would allow her to build a second house for herself on the property she presently owns. The setting is a residential area in the Town of Guilderland, a few miles west of Albany, New York.
On the surface it may appear to be a petty dispute, such as those that, unfortunately, commonly arise among neighbors, but a thoughtful person will undoubtedly conclude that the squabble has some very serious implications. The primary concern being the violation of property rights guaranteed by the United States Constitution. This remarkable, lasting document states that private property shall not be taken without just compensation. This amendment not only applies to confiscation, but also to any limitations on what the owner can do with his property.
The article title, “Angry neighbors mob board,” provides insight into the degree of civility that had been exhibited. The property owner who is the subject of the attacks recently bought a three-story home in the Lynnwood Estates, where she now resides. Her desire was to build a ranch house for herself on the property and let her daughter and her twin sons live in the existing home. Not only desiring company, there is also the matter of her having arthritic knees, which undoubtedly present an obstacle to stair climbing. This certainly sounds like a logical approach.
Dozens of irate residents filled the Town Hall the previous week, claiming that the requested variance, that would allow the new house to be thirty feet from the existing one, would significantly change the character of the neighborhood and ruin its looks. This would appear to fall into the category of arbitrary and capricious, loaded with autocracy, whim and fancy, impulsiveness, and subjectivity; along with intolerance. One would think that if someone desires solitude they would purchase enough acreage to ensure such rather than asking someone else to provide this quality. The question arises as to why these residents chose to settle in a section of the Capital District that was rapidly losing its pastoral nature to development. There exist an abundance of available open space within commuting distance of Albany.
Realistically, individuals should be able to do anything they chose with their property as long as there is no actual, significant adverse impact on their neighbors or on an important public resource. And, what is considered significant should not be based on liberal interpretation, but rather unequivocal. For example, a person whose septic system overflows on a neighbor’s land or contaminates a watershed is obviously a valid basis for discipline, but esthetics based on personal preferences undoubtedly is not.
The lady under attack told the zoning board that many of the houses on her street are not much more than 30 feet apart, raising additional questions about the mob’s objections. To the Enterprise’s credit, they followed up with a drive through the development which confirmed the owners claims.
It was reported that the lady told the newspaper that she could not find a friendly face in the crowd at the hearing and also that petitions in opposition had been filed by over 100 property owners. Rather neighborly indeed, getting one to wonder why anyone would want to live in their midst. As is typical when mobs get together to vent their spleens, a flurry of neighbors continued to step up to the podium, each with similar comments, and then clapping in support of each other.
The question arises as to why in a free society people so quickly buy into something as intrusive and bureaucratic as zoning. Could it be that they are quite selfish and feel that they will never be nailed, as they desire others to be? Or maybe they feel that people do not deserve freedom. Another possibility is that they just do not make use of their brains.
In the adversary deliberations mention was made of the cutting down of trees by the previous owner and the effect this had on privacy. It is as if people are not aware that, by law, trees are a resource that belong to the owner of the property. If the powers to be must for some justifiable reason take possession of them, the owner must be given due compensation. In light of this issue, it is interesting how many individuals who purchase property, shortly thereafter cut down many trees to prepare the site for construction and to improve their view of the surround. Later they cultivate massive lawns, where trees never stand a chance to grow.
One resident of the development later told the Enterprise that most of the neighbors were afraid to tell the zoning board that they do not like her care-taking of the property she owns. Included in the complaints were not mowing the lawn and no curtains hanging. What is wrong with a lawn or garden comprised of natural vegetation? And she had a legitimate reason for not hanging curtains, but whose business is that anyway?
The lady that was the target was quoted as saying “when all is said and done, I still want to be a good neighbor.” Just how many of those attending the hearing would or could say the same? The matter of whether a variance will be granted has yet to be resolved. It will interesting to learn what bases were used in the decision process.
How often is the expression “a man’s home is his castle” used in conversations or writings in this modern era? Let it not be forgotten that property rights are the bulwark of individual freedom, and one’s property is the only place where a person is truly free. Care must be taken to preserve these precious rights.
Nate Dickinson
February 21, 2003
Email Nate Dickinson: rdickinson@nycap.rr.com
| Back to: | |
|
|