ronpaulvoter
Well-known member
- Joined
- Aug 9, 2007
- Messages
- 627
- Reaction score
- 111
- Gender
- Undisclosed
- Political Leaning
- Libertarian
I think the more appropriate question is "how much less would you pay for property next door to someone with laissez faire property?"
I think there is a "happy medium" in there, likely different for each area.
Too many restrictions lower property value, and too few restrictions lower property value.
We moved to Maine because it is has a laissez faire attitude about property rights AND low prices.
But I think you will find that your average investment banker will choose Martha's Vineyard for his/her real estate choice They don't really object to the fact that the neighborhood zoning laws do not allow people to hang their laundry on a line or park their boat in the driveway or paint their house a color other than the half dozen approved heritage colors....and GOD FORBID that a neighbor throw a mobile home next to yours!! or, or, a walking path that might attract rif raf..OR, hang Christmas lights which are not a tasteful white., or keep farm animals, or have a home based business.... etc. etc.
It is hilarious that anyone would imagine that restrictions and zoning are anything but an elitist impulse to exclude undesirables- Like any country club, it makes property values much higher, certainly not lower. The real estate maxim- for those of you who are unfamiliar with it- purchase the worst dump in the best neighborhood. Location, Location. Its everything.
I should probably be payed for this free advice.
But I think you will find that your average investment banker will choose Martha's Vineyard for his/her real estate choice They don't really object to the fact that the neighborhood zoning laws do not allow people to hang their laundry on a line or park their boat in the driveway or paint their house a color other than the half dozen approved heritage colors....and GOD FORBID that a neighbor throw a mobile home next to yours!! or, or, a walking path that might attract rif raf..OR, hang Christmas lights which are not a tasteful white., or keep farm animals, or have a home based business.... etc. etc.
Next time I buy property, I'm looking for something that is next door to nobody. A good neighbor is one at shouting distance and no closer.I think the more appropriate question is "how much less would you pay for property next door to someone with laissez faire property?"
Some of us already know that all levels of government are imposing more and more restrictions, mandates and fees onto people's private property.
When America was founded, a person could do just abouit anything he wanted with his own property, and officials would leave him alone.
Now there are numerous and increasing abuses. A couple of extreme examples are $1000 for a mandated percolation test and $65 for a permit to replace a water heater.
Let's assume you have a choice of two otherwise identical pieces of property onto which you wish to build a new home. One has the current excessive regulations; the other has essentially none, like in the old days, and the assurance that it would remain that way.
Assuming you have enough money to do so, how much more would you be willing to pay for the unregulated property, percentage wise?
Perhaps.
Indeed, "elitist impulse to exclude undesirables" is a very accurate discription.
I was thinking more along the lines of "reasonable" restrictions.
An obviously messy neighborhood demands lower property values.
I would prefer a neighborhood that restricts the worst while allowing everything else. Although I currently live in one with very few, if any, restrictions
In areas where properties are closer together, regulation is needed, especially in suburban centres. In rural areas, I don't see the problem with a more laissez faire approach.
The one thing I hate the most is neighbours who cut down big trees for their stupid gardening projects. I've filed complaints with the city many times to stop these people.
why?
what's wrong with people gardening?
Trees increase property value, even for the surrounding homes. They provide shade, attract beautiful wildlife, and just make the area look more beautiful. Everyone benefits.
Trees increase property value, even for the surrounding homes. They provide shade, attract beautiful wildlife, and just make the area look more beautiful. Everyone benefits.
When America was founded, a person could do just abouit anything he wanted with his own property, and officials would leave him alone.
I wonder if cutting interlocking fire breaks across the entire forested land area would reduce the size of these fires?
I think the more appropriate question is "how much less would you pay for property next door to someone with laissez faire property?"
The answer is that I would pay much less. Maybe my neighbor to the back of me only wants to raise 4 pigs this year but maybe he will be decide to raise 400 next year.
My neighbor to the south has not updated his septic system for years. We drilled a new well further away from his place.
My neighbor to the north is a fisherman and his wife is a crab picker. Their compost is plenty fragrant!
Oh yeh, I forgot to mention that I live in Maine where zoning is almost nonexistent and I bought my little farm for next to nothing.
We moved to Maine because it is has a laissez faire attitude about property rights AND low prices....
I was thinking more along the lines of "reasonable" restrictions.
I would prefer a neighborhood that restricts the worst while allowing everything else....
Next time I buy property, I'm looking for something that is next door to nobody. A good neighbor is one at shouting distance and no closer.
...People are funny with property and regulations, they think government should exist to protect their investment.
I agree that there is or should be a reasonable standard....
The irony, for those who favor small gov't and local control, is that like minded people will choose to vote in the restrictions and amenities that help to maintain a homogenous affluent community. It is certainly not a "liberal" or big gov't impulse. It is a tribal /wealth impulse.
In areas where properties are closer together, regulation is needed, especially in suburban centres. In rural areas, I don't see the problem with a more laissez faire approach....
...Sometimes what you do on your property affects my property or my life. If you are going to open a pig farm on your property I won't pay a dime for the property next to you.
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?