Pie Palace

That’s a good question. I’ll try to answer it, but keep in mind that this isn’t an issue I’ve put too much thought into. Please criticize/discuss it, but keep in mind that my opinion is fairly plastic, and I’m liable to change my mind if you bring up a good point. =)

My primary concern with the rural “what I do with my land is my business” is that it’s impact on health and environmental safety. In terms of health, if someone wants to build a gold mine on their property, the onus is on them to show that the arsenic and mercury from their operations will be safely disposed of.

From an environmental perpsective, I would argue that some resources trump property rights. If someone owns land that has a unique ecosystem, they shouldn’t have the right to trash it just to make a buck. That ecosystem is part of the ecological wealth of society – destroying it takes something from society. Ideally, the government would buy up such land and make it a park, but I would be happy with other options that benefit both the landowner and society in general.

The corallary to this is the downstream impact of development. If landowner A lives upstream from landowner B, and landowner A’s development demonstrably modifies B’s land, then A owes B reparations. I wouldn’t include appearance in this calculation: if A turns his or her land into an eyesore, that’s too bad; but if A somehow changes B’s land (by raising or lowering water levels, producing effluent that kills some portion of the land, causes fires, etc) then A owes B something.

The government, should have the right to prevent certain types of land use; if they impact the general health of the land, or has an unduely large impact on other land users. However, that control should be limited to dealing with issues that have a health, economic, or environmental impact on others.

Without having considered the issue too carefully, I would exclude property value from this equation, however. Property values effect land owners twice: when they buy, and when they sell the land (ignoring taxation, which should not be based on property value anyway). I can see property owner B suing A, if A has lowered the value of their land, but only at the time of sale.

Where does the stench from a pig farm fit into this calculus? I don’t know. I would argue that an overwhelming stink can prevent other people from being able to use their land, and should be preventable; but that’s somehow different from an eyesore.

So now let’s get into city life. I’m a city kid, and one of the reasons I value cities is because of their heterogeneity. Cities should be varied places. Rich people should live next door to poor people. People with manicured lawns should live next door to people with cars rusting in their lawns (of course, I would argue against the existance of both extremes, but that’s another argument). People should be allowed to paint their houses whatever colour they want, or put up laundry lines, or whatever else they want to do so long as it doesn’t have a direct impact on their neighbours, in terms of health, economic activity, or environmental effect.

The one exception I would allow for this would be in “planned communities.” I use the term planned community to describe hippy communes and religious communities where buying land also means buying into an idea shared by the other residents. In that situation, if the community’s guidelines are set out beforehand (such as “no meat” in a vegan community, or “no rusting cars” in a gated community), then I think it’s fair for extra restrictions to be placed on land use. Although it may make more sense if land is somehow treated as a condo, instead of full-on ownership, to prevent the circumvention of the aforementioned rights.