Posted on 04/17/2003 10:57:21 PM PDT by kattracks
That's not what I said. I didn't say they couldn't be grown there; I merely said that they were the owners responsibility. If the plants left the property and became a nuisance for somebody else, the "victim" would then have civil recourse.
It is a slippery slope. As I said, I would prefer it as a totally civil matter. Unfortunately, the biggest weed transporter around here is the County itself, so I don't see a purely civil system having a prayer only because judges are so corrupt in their protection of government interests. The state already has the right to define a noxious weed and has such a list. What's happened is that they don't list weeds because the power interests don't want the accountability and the system fails.
If I had my way I would call a weed, any non-native vegetation. If the plant moves so fast that it justifies a lawsuit, so be it. If it stays put, nobody would bother. You would have the absolute right to grow all you want; just don't let it leave or your neighbors might lodge a claim against you. If the neighbors don't care then there's no harm done although they inherit a potential liabiiity downstream. That's why there's no civic enforcement at all in the ordinance I proposed. It merely defines responsibility.
In fact, I might want to see it expanded to cover insects. I treat my property for fire ants, but they don't, so I keep getting them back.
So you not only wanna be a do gooder on your land, you want your neighbor to be a do gooder too.
I have had exactly the same problem with neighboring property. Everyone who owns property has problems with neighbors. Live with it, buy him out, or sell out. Bitching and whining won't help, and laws would make it worse.
So9
I had a lot of support from large landowners and ranchers and forest owners that have been so badly threatened by Sierra Flubbers using governmental pressure not to allow them to do anything with their land but preserve it for people it doesn't belong to, that they are all "land rich and cash broke!"
Cash is king and the Sierra Flub even interferring with banks lending to land owners to stop the developers has been very successful in crucifying resource land owners. This along with litigation against local governments over land use plans to force their absolute NO GROWTH agenda has been so effective that most of my county looks more like Appilachia than L.A.!!!
As to weeds, Carry Okie, how do you keep the dang birds from pooping weed seeds around berry patches? And aren't one man's weeds another man's favorite wildflowers? I know... I don't really understand the situation, but yet I do as I've read your fantastic book and believe in it's good news!!!
Possibly. The two of you might prefer to work it out before that. The mere fact of responsibility provides the necessary bargaining chip.
In fact, I might want to see it expanded to cover insects. I treat my property for fire ants, but they don't, so I keep getting them back.
Insects are a tougher case to prove because they are automotive (IIRC, fire ants fly). But if you could prove the case (as I said, that's tough and requires a considerable investment in documentary evidence that the fire ants you have come from his place), and if it was worth the cost and risk of the action, you could probably work it out with the neighbor before ever getting to court by virtue of the mere existence of the law. It's more likely that such an ordinance would get people talking about how to handle the problem just because the cost of making a case out of it is so high and nobody wants pissed off neighbors. Heck, you might both decide that you like looking at the trees enough to just deal with it or he gets a dip once in a while if he compensates you for the hassle. But if the perp was really a problem, you could make his insurance pay to fix it.
Note that uninfested land would immediately become relatively more valuable and the insurance companies would have motive to invest in those developing cheaper pest control processes.
Nope. I just want him to control his weeds. They belong to him. The case is no differnt than if he was an industrial plant upstream polluting the water running onto my land.
Live with it, buy him out, or sell out. Bitching and whining won't help, and laws would make it worse.
Weeds are an enormous problem and a huge cost to rural landowners (this isn't about just an acre or two). Weeds can be highly toxic. Consider herbaceous hemlock: the pollen causes birth defects. Starthistle causes nerve lesions. Your preference would be that people just keep abandoning land because they won't deal with the responsibilities of ownership. No thanks.
Leafy spurge is so bad that it causes ranchers to abandon their land. The same is true of knapweed. The latter accelerates erosion 130% in Montana. Look at kudzu. Starthistle is significantly dewatering a quarter of the State of California. Weeds are a force so powerful, that they can make a desert of what was once productive land.
No, this is a problem that needs to be fixed and people need a motive to get the marketplace to devise efficient means. I don't think a regulatory bureaucracy is a good way to do it, but that's what we'll get if we don't. The legislation is in the pipeline now and it could be just as bad as the ESA. Worse, the chief weed perpetrator is the Federal government itself.
I know.
I once shared 3 miles of fenceline with essentially abandoned farmland.
It's a real problem, but one that landowners have always had.
I just don't think there is any solution that isn't worse than the problem. It's one of those cases in life where you just have to suck it up and get on with things.
Frustration and anger you can't expend will eat you up if you don't let them go.
So9
What legislation are you referring to? State or federal?
Prohibiting an activity is far less intrusive than mandating one.
I don't see any significant difference in the intrusion on basic property rights whether it's a law enforced by government agents or whether it's liability to your neighbor when he sues you. In either event, it's politicians deciding which plants you must eradicate on your property so that your neighbor is happy.
The next step would be for the politicians to tell you which plants you must grow on your property, and it all goes downhill from there.
That is where you are getting hung up. We are not talking the government requiring you to do anything or telling you how to do it. IF you own the land, you should be responsible for it. Do you have a problem with responsibility?
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.