Posted on 06/03/2008 3:19:02 PM PDT by Tolerance Sucks Rocks
Is there a prohibition against signs advertising local politicians?
Only if they provide the lawn mower and the gasoline...
Taller grass is more “natural” and recycle more carbon. Besides, lawn mowers use that evil gasoline stuff
You are right...But mowing keeps weeds down...and allows the natural grasses and animals that love them to thrive. I’m thinking goats are next.
My significant other cuts down one of our fields - about 35 acres - down twice a year..and the grasses that grow instead of the thistle and other noxious things are spectacular.
What constitutes “not mowing” anyway? When I lived in OH and had to mow my own lawn, I sometimes had 8” grass because, I *GASP* worked for a living and didn’t always get home in time to cut it before dark!
Don't do that. Just buy some round-up concentrate, wait for her to leave and soak the area.
I had a neighbor when I rented years ago who refused to cut up to his property line...there was a fence along half of it. I just Round-up'd 4 feet into his yard, blamed it on the landlord and he cut it thereafter :)
This is a really interesting issue to me.
On one hand I sympathize with those facing lower property values because of poorly maintained adjoining property. But on the other hand, I also sympathize with the "lazy" property owner's right to use (or not use) his property as he likes, and I have a strong aversion to any laws which compel a person to take a particular action (as opposed to merely refraining from certain actions).
Where and how should we draw the line on compulsory property maintenance? Suppose it could be shown that neighborhoods where all lawns are covered in the same grass have higher average property values than similar neighborhoods with diverse grass types. If 9 out of 10 neighbors want grass type "A", but one neighbor really likes the look of grass type "B", should the majority be able to compel the lone dissenter to choose a grass he doesn't like?
I think any activities which
-physically affect another's property,
-create unreasonable risk of physical damage/trespass to another's property, or
-project unreasonable light or noise onto another's property,
are all activities that could be legitimately regulated by the government. Beyond that...I'm not too sure.
So if someone's grass is attracting pests that will eat up the neighbor's petunias, then a citation might be in order. If the grass isn't going to affect the neighbors beyond offending their sense of taste or the resale value of their house, then the city probably doesn't need to be involved. IMHO.
I'd be interested in hearing other perspectives on the matter.
What if the same house that has knee-high grass hasn't been painted in a couple decades andhas a wreck or two out front.
Say it costs the neighbor's property value to drop by $20,000.
Then say there are 9 other property owners on the block who are suffering the same drop in property prices because one place looks like a hovel but the rest of them work their buns off to make sure their places looks like beautiful castles?
Should one person be able to drop the property values of their neighbors by 200,000 or so?
Even if we don't suppose all the rest, does one person have the right to drop the property values around him by $10,000 * 10 or $100,000, just because he's too lazy to get off his/her arse and spend a half a day mowing his lawn?
It's easy to waste money when it's someone elses money that's being wasted. Nothing easier in the world ;)
I guess it depends on how the person is dropping the value of the property. If the person is hosting a rock concert in his garage every weekend, then I would say he shouldn't be allowed to do that. If the person simply wants to paint his house an unpopular color, then I think the drop in adjacent property values doesn't matter.
Admittedly, it's not a perfect solution. I don't think a perfect solution is possible in this case. You're either going to end up sacrificing too many property rights for the sake of property values, or sacrificing too much property values for the sake of property rights.
Even if we don't suppose all the rest, does one person have the right to drop the property values around him by $10,000 * 10 or $100,000, just because he's too lazy to get off his/her arse and spend a half a day mowing his lawn?
Good question. I have to answer a hesitant "yes" to your question, as silly as it may sound. I don't believe an individual should have a positive legal obligation to maintain the value of other people's property, especially at the expense of his own rights in his own property.
I certainly think the decent and neighborly thing to do is to expend a little effort when it will greatly benefit those around you. But I don't believe everything that is decent is necessarily appropriate to enforce by government edict.
To put your question another way, do I have the right to force another person to work- against their will- for the sake of my own financial benefit in a particular piece of property? If so then I must ask again: where do we draw the line?
Suppose I run a popular bar. It sits next to a restaurant, a convenience store, and a hotel. I've decided to start closing early on the weekends so I can have more free time. The restaurant owner tells me that if I would stay open a couple more hours on the weekends (like most other bars) then he would make twice as much in breakfast sales. Accordingly, with those increased sales he could get a much higher price when he sells the restaurant...enough to retire in Hawaii. The convenience store owner and hotel owner also feel they would make thousands more per month if I kept later hours on the weekends.
Should they be able to use the force of law to have me keep my bar open an extra couple of hours on the weekends? Remember, I only have to give up an hour or two of sleep on Sunday morning, whereas they are looking at losing tens of thousands of dollars from decreased sales and decreased business values.
That's why I say: draw the line at direct physical damage, direct interference (i.e. light or noise), or an unreasonable risk of damage or interference. It leaves a lot uncovered, but at least it puts a line someone and preserves some space for individual liberty and the right to use your property as you wish.
It's easy to waste money when it's someone elses money that's being wasted. Nothing easier in the world ;)
At the very least we can agree on this point. :)
It leaves a lot uncovered, but at least it puts a line someonewhere and preserves some space for individual liberty and the right to use your property as you wish.
I couldn’t agree more. As an absentee owner of a property in Rockport, I make it my business to police certain absentee slumlords there.
One renter next to us had a dog that dug up the underground pipes! I took pictures of it and sent them the pictures. I said, ‘just because you rent to everyone and their dog is no reason we should have to look at this.’
They have since improved their screening of tenants. After having a bad one ourselves, we’ve got a new property manager. I think property mgmt. should be mandatory for nonlocally owned property. How else can a complaint get immediate attention?
I'd be interested in hearing other perspectives on the matter.
Well said. I concur wholeheartedly. When my wife and I were looking at homes a year or so ago, we told the realtor not to even bother showing us anything with an HOA, because I have no desire to live in one or by the associated busybodies they seem to attract.
People are too damned willing to sign their rights away without even giving it a second thought.
At my previous residence, I had a rather elderly neighbor who couldn't always get his lawn mowed regularly. When it got high, I just did it myself when I mowed my own. It was a small thing to me, and cost me little. I needed the extra excercise anyway. :-)
Again, well said. Folks who start of sentances with "there ought to be a law" need to have their tounge removed. :-)
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.