He wasn't rich, he was simply not keeping his house up. So your apparent hatred of wealthy homeowners has little relevance to this argument.
Second, the fact that property rights in this country have, as a matter of fact, been greatly eroded by creeping socialism doesn't mean that, in theory, this creeping socialism is a good thing.
The main issues are these: why do Mr. Wolk's neighbors get to decide how he deals with his own property? Why do their personal preferences outweigh his own preferences with regard to his property? Do the terms of his deed impose upon him a condition to repair his property? If not, why is he compelled to do so? Why is this a criminal and not a civil offence? What is the standard, and who decides, which house is in an acceptable and which house in an unacceptable state of repair? Was it necessary to smash down his door?
Your comment, I believe, had to do with “the concept of private property.” Whether it is a cheap property or a very expensive one, he does not get to do whatever he wants with that property in most places.
He wasn't rich, he was simply not keeping his house up. So your apparent hatred of wealthy homeowners has little relevance to this argument.
Rich or not rich, as the property owner he has an obligation to maintain that property in accordance with community standards in most places. That’s just the way it is. If my apparent hatred of wealthy homeowners has little relevance, would my apparent hatred of scofflaws be relevant?
Second, the fact that property rights in this country have, as a matter of fact, been greatly eroded by creeping socialism doesn't mean that, in theory, this creeping socialism is a good thing.
And aren’t necessarily bad either. For instance, the “family” that lives in an apartment across the street is actually about three families from what I can see. They run (ran, actually) a taxi service from that apartment and had at least seven taxi cabs that they parked all over the place. It sort of puts a kink in the works when each apartment has a single parking space but the residents have many more (commercial) vehicles than they can park - and there are community regulations against running a business out of a residence without a permit here anyway. I don’t particularly mind that.
The main issues are these: why do Mr. Wolk's neighbors get to decide how he deals with his own property? Why do their personal preferences outweigh his own preferences with regard to his property? Do the terms of his deed impose upon him a condition to repair his property? If not, why is he compelled to do so? Why is this a criminal and not a civil offence? What is the standard, and who decides, which house is in an acceptable and which house in an unacceptable state of repair? Was it necessary to smash down his door?
Typically, the neighbors do not “get to decide.” The community standards are in place and a neighbor may call and report a violation, which the city will investigate and pursue or not. Personal preferences don’t have much to do with it – you are in compliance or not. He is compelled to do so, generally, because of past legal action. Generally, someone will file a suit that will result in the city passing an ordinance – or they will do it under the guise of public safety, whatever. As to why this was a criminal offence – it wasn’t. At least not at first. He ignored repeated attempts to resolve the situation. There is no point in having a regulation, law or ordinance that cannot or will not be enforced. So ultimately, yes, they had to go drag him out.
Keep that in mind the next time you get a parking or speeding ticket. You may pay it or contest it, but if you decide to ignore the first one, and ignore the second and third ones, don’t be surprised when you end up getting arrested due to outstanding warrants for failure to appear regarding something that could have been taken care of quickly and easily. You probably won’t like it, just don’t be surprised.