Property and the general welfare

Disagree 100%. Take for example high fenced hunting operations. Texas is one giant high fenced hunting setup. If you were to put these to a general vote, they'd likely be outlawed. So, do we just give Texas to Mexico?

0 Replies

cjhsa wrote:

Disagree 100%. Take for example high fenced hunting operations. Texas is one giant high fenced hunting setup. If you were to put these to a general vote, they'd likely be outlawed. So, do we just give Texas to Mexico?

http://members.aol.com/aliasmadrona/images/the%20twilight%20zone.jpg

0 Replies

Huh? I'm guessing Set doesn't approve of property ownership at all.

0 Replies

This is an excellent topic, Joe.

I feel fairly safe in saying that you are aware that i am a firm believer in the social contract. I can't say whether or not you know, but i hold that morality does not exist, per se, and that it is usually only a convenience for the interference of the self-righteous.

On such a basis, i would hold that, at least theoretically, society has an absolute right to regulate one's use of one's property. From a pragmatic point of view, society will necessarily be obliged to limit the extent to which it seeks to interfer in a private individual's use of private property to the extent that it can be reasonably alleged that any stipulated use is harmful or potentially harmful to society, in general or in particular.

0 Replies

Castle doctrine is becoming the law of the land. Talk about being in the twilight zone...

0 Replies

Re: Property and the general welfare

joefromchicago wrote:

Every man holds his property subject to the general right of the community to regulate its use to whatever degree the public welfare may require it.

Agree or disagree?

Agree.

That's the way it is in the United States of America.

Individual property rights are not absolute. The community has the right to regulate the use of private property to whatever degree the public welfare requires. Under our constitution, the community can pass virtually any law it desires to pass with respect to the use of private property so long as the law serves a legitimate government purpose.

The community regulates the use of private property through zoning ordinances. The community regulates the use of private property through eminent domain laws--if the community wants someone's property for any public purpose whatsoever (e.g., economic development), the community may take it so long as they provide adequate due process and pay "just compensation" to the owner. The community regulates the use of private property through public nuisance laws. The community regulates the use of private property through restrictive covenants.

And the list of ways that the community may regulate the use of private property for the public welfare continues to grow. . . .

0 Replies

cjhsa wrote:

Disagree 100%. Take for example high fenced hunting operations. Texas is one giant high fenced hunting setup. If you were to put these to a general vote, they'd likely be outlawed. So, do we just give Texas to Mexico?

I guess I don't quite understand, maybe because I don't really know what a "high fenced hunting setup" is. Is that something like the quail-hunting reserves that Dick Cheney visits?

The fact that a land use might be outlawed if it were put to a vote is, I think, not dispositive, since that really is a question that goes to the political process rather than to the relationship of private property and the general welfare. But then that raises a question: how do we decide what use is in the public's interest?

0 Replies

cjhsa wrote:

Castle doctrine is becoming the law of the land. Talk about being in the twilight zone...

"A man's home is his castle."

That's a nice adage, but that's all it is. You may come home from work, sit in your easy chair, turn on your television, and find refuge from the outside world in your own little castle. But, your USE of that castle is regulated to the nth degree for the public welfare.

If the king of his castle lets his grass grow a little too high or if he allows junk to accumulate in his yard or if he builds a fence too high or if he builds a castle addition without applying for a permit and without submitting to inspections or if he cooks crank in his kitchen or if the city wants to raze the castle to build a shopping center, etc., then the king finds out that he's not in charge of his kingdom.

0 Replies

Setanta wrote:

On such a basis, i would hold that, at least theoretically, society has an absolute right to regulate one's use of one's property. From a pragmatic point of view, society will necessarily be obliged to limit the extent to which it seeks to interfer in a private individual's use of private property to the extent that it can be reasonably alleged that any stipulated use is harmful or potentially harmful to society, in general or in particular.

Can society interfere in a person's use of private property to the extent of forbidding any use of that property? For instance, let's say there is a piece of property, and its highest and best use is as a gravel pit. Further, it has been determined that any other use of the property would be economically unfeasible, so that the property will be used as a gravel pit or it won't be used at all. Could the government nevertheless forbid the use of that property as a gravel pit?

0 Replies

Debra_Law wrote:

"A man's home is his castle."

That's a nice adage, but that's all it is. You may come home from work, sit in your easy chair, turn on your television, and find refuge from the outside world in your own little castle. But, your USE of that castle is regulated to the nth degree for the public welfare.

If the king of his castle lets his grass grow a little too high or if he allows junk to accumulate in his yard or if he builds a fence too high or if he builds a castle addition without applying for a permit and without submitting to inspections or if he cooks crank in his kitchen or if the city wants to raze the castle to build a shopping center, etc., then the king finds out that he's not in charge of his kingdom.

That may be an accurate statement of the law, but the question really is: should it be the case that private property is subject to the needs of society?

0 Replies

joefromchicago wrote:

Setanta wrote:
On such a basis, i would hold that, at least theoretically, society has an absolute right to regulate one's use of one's property. From a pragmatic point of view, society will necessarily be obliged to limit the extent to which it seeks to interfer in a private individual's use of private property to the extent that it can be reasonably alleged that any stipulated use is harmful or potentially harmful to society, in general or in particular.

Can society interfere in a person's use of private property to the extent of forbidding any use of that property? For instance, let's say there is a piece of property, and its highest and best use is as a gravel pit. Further, it has been determined that any other use of the property would be economically unfeasible, so that the property will be used as a gravel pit or it won't be used at all. Could the government nevertheless forbid the use of that property as a gravel pit?

Although i don't see where you are going with this, i'd say yes, government can forbid the use of the property on any basis which it chooses. The social contract can be imposed from above (as in monarchy or oligarchy) or it can be consented to. In either case, yes, i think that government has an absolute ability to so interfere. My reference to a pragmatic point of view is to the likelihood that a government which imposed to an extent which the majority of the population were unwilling to accept would lead to the end of said government.

0 Replies

SHOULD?

As far a public nuisances go, to the extent that one person's use of his private property harms the community, then YES . . . the community SHOULD regulate private property for the general welfare.

To a large extent, what the community SHOULD or SHOULDN'T do with respect to regulating private property is a POLITICAL QUESTION. In our country, the political power of democratically-elected majorities is limited by the Constitution. While private property rights are held in high esteem, those rights are not absolute.

0 Replies

joefromchicago wrote:

Setanta wrote:
On such a basis, i would hold that, at least theoretically, society has an absolute right to regulate one's use of one's property. From a pragmatic point of view, society will necessarily be obliged to limit the extent to which it seeks to interfer in a private individual's use of private property to the extent that it can be reasonably alleged that any stipulated use is harmful or potentially harmful to society, in general or in particular.

Can society interfere in a person's use of private property to the extent of forbidding any use of that property? For instance, let's say there is a piece of property, and its highest and best use is as a gravel pit. Further, it has been determined that any other use of the property would be economically unfeasible, so that the property will be used as a gravel pit or it won't be used at all. Could the government nevertheless forbid the use of that property as a gravel pit?

To answer that question, we must go back to your original proposition:

"Every man holds his property subject to the general right of the community to regulate its use to whatever degree the public welfare may require it."

IF the public welfare legitimately requires that the property at issue NOT be used as a gravel pit, then YES--the government could forbid the use of that property as a gravel pit. However, if the government through its zoning/use regulation has eliminated ALL economic value of the property, then this could be construed as a taking that entitles the property owner to just compensation.

0 Replies

Lots of eminent domain talk.

So you have a business in the middle of nowhere that isn't particularly pleasant to smell/see/whatever.

Some developer builds a bunch of homes next to it. People move in and complain about the view/stink/whatever.

To heck with 'em.

0 Replies

cjhsa wrote:

So, do we just give Texas to Mexico?

You mean give it BACK to Mexico.

0 Replies

If you lose $20 at the grocery store, is it still yours?

0 Replies

heeheeheeheeheeheeheeheeheeheeheeheeheehee . . .

To quote Senator Hiakawa, with regard to the Panama Canal:

It's ours. We stole it, fair and square. We should keep it.

0 Replies

Setanta wrote:

heeheeheeheeheeheeheeheeheeheeheeheeheehee . . .

To quote Senator Hiakawa, with regard to the Panama Canal:

It's ours. We stole it, fair and square. We should keep it.

that's a good'un.

0 Replies

Property and the general welfare

Related Topics

Quick Links

My Account

able2know