 Author
|
Topic: The best Sheriff in NH (Read 17577 times)
|
|
MaineShark
|
Well...
If the role of government is partly to protect property, that would include trespass. Trespass can be accomplished in many ways, including by chemical substances, smell or noise pollution. It's been accepted for over 1,000 years that a "nuisance" (e.g., a person having a pig farm that stinks right beside your perfume shop) is a trespass and the person committing the trespass must either stop doing it or compensate the victim. A noise problem can also be a trespass. I think that the government taking care of that falls within the SOI. If there's no harm, there's no trespass. If you don't want to live next to a pig farm or a barking dog, then don't. That's your choice. "Anti-nuisance" laws are some of the most pervasively-evil laws on the books. Look at how often "disturbing the peace" is used to harass people, just for one example. Joe |
|
|
|
|
Logged
|
"An armed society is a polite society" - this does not mean that we are polite because we fear each other.
We are not civilized because we are armed; we are armed because we are civilized..
|
|
|
|
Dreepa
|
Sheriff Taylor is probably the best sheriff in NH.
|
|
|
|
|
Logged
|
|
|
|
|
NHArticleTen
|
Sheriff Taylor is probably the best sheriff in NH.
Dreepa would make a good sheriff... |
|
|
|
|
Logged
|
|
|
|
|
coyote
|
Sheriff Taylor is probably the best sheriff in NH.
He's not related to Andy is he?  Seriously though, what county is he Sheriff of and why do you like him? |
|
|
|
|
Logged
|
|
|
|
|
sj
|
Well...
If the role of government is partly to protect property, that would include trespass. Trespass can be accomplished in many ways, including by chemical substances, smell or noise pollution. It's been accepted for over 1,000 years that a "nuisance" (e.g., a person having a pig farm that stinks right beside your perfume shop) is a trespass and the person committing the trespass must either stop doing it or compensate the victim. A noise problem can also be a trespass. I think that the government taking care of that falls within the SOI. If there's no harm, there's no trespass. If you don't want to live next to a pig farm or a barking dog, then don't. That's your choice. "Anti-nuisance" laws are some of the most pervasively-evil laws on the books. Look at how often "disturbing the peace" is used to harass people, just for one example. Joe You're not thinking ahead very much, Joe. "If you don't want to live next to a pig farm, don't" forgets the fact that sometimes the pig farm comes to you. You may have bought this property ten years ago, put a perfume shop on it, and then last year had your neighbor decide to put a pig farm right on the property line, destroying your business. I would argue that that's a trespass and that the owner of the perfume shop should be compensated for the loss of property value, since his land is no longer good for having perfume shops on it. If it is still profitable for the pig farm to pay the compensation and stay open, then that is the most efficient outcome and should happen. Now, if the pig farm was there first, then the "compensation" will happen because the price of the property will be lower when you buy it (which means that the current owner loses resale value, which he should be compensated for, but you are simply compensated in the lower market value. Besides, you know when you buy it that you can't have a perfume shop on it). So the "I was there first" argument matters in that situation. To argue that property that you bought for 100K and is now worth 20K because your neighbor opened up a pig farm has not been trespassed is ridiculous to me. That's the law, and I think it makes a lot of sense and is within the FSP statement of intent as it is within the maximum role of government to protect life, liberty and property. |
|
|
|
« Last Edit: July 19, 2008, 12:05:10 pm by sjhipple »
|
Logged
|
Moved? Update your address so we can move the counter and get more people to follow you! To update, go to www.freestateproject.org/userClick on "edit" Click on "FSP Registration Information" Update your address and click "submit"
|
|
|
|
coyote
|
Sheriff Taylor is probably the best sheriff in NH.
Dreepa would make a good sheriff... What say you Dreepa? |
|
|
|
|
Logged
|
|
|
|
|
sj
|
Sheriff Taylor is probably the best sheriff in NH.
Dreepa would make a good sheriff... What say you Dreepa? Well, he's already been chosen by his neighbors to be a selectman so he's got some experience winning elections. |
|
|
|
|
Logged
|
Moved? Update your address so we can move the counter and get more people to follow you! To update, go to www.freestateproject.org/userClick on "edit" Click on "FSP Registration Information" Update your address and click "submit"
|
|
|
|
MaineShark
|
You're not thinking ahead very much, Joe. "If you don't want to live next to a pig farm, don't" forgets the fact that sometimes the pig farm comes to you. You may have bought this property ten years ago, put a perfume shop on it, and then last year had your neighbor decide to put a pig farm right on the property line, destroying your business. I would argue that that's a trespass and that the owner of the perfume shop should be compensated for the loss of property value, since his land is no longer good for having perfume shops on it. If it is still profitable for the pig farm to pay the compensation and stay open, then that is the most efficient outcome and should happen.
Now, if the pig farm was there first, then the "compensation" will happen because the price of the property will be lower when you buy it (which means that the current owner loses resale value, which he should be compensated for, but you are simply compensated in the lower market value. Besides, you know when you buy it that you can't have a perfume shop on it). So the "I was there first" argument matters in that situation.
To argue that property that you bought for 100K and is now worth 20K because your neighbor opened up a pig farm has not been trespassed is ridiculous to me.
That's the law, and I think it makes a lot of sense and is within the FSP statement of intent as it is within the maximum role of government to protect life, liberty and property. You should have contracted with your neighbor, such that he agreed not to put in a pig farm. Your failure to plan for the future does not constitute a trespass on his part. A number of years back, the owners of my house and land wanted to increase their land holdings, and purchased a parcel of land from their neighbor. That neighbor didn't mind selling the land, but wanted to make sure that it would stay as open field, and not end up subdivided as a building lot. Therefore, that neighbor stipulated as a condition of the sale that it never be developed. If that neighbor had not insisted on that stipulation, then there would be no harm to him if I were to build a house on that lot. He could not claim harm, just because he lacked the foresight to plan for that eventuality. Similarly, if he were to build a pig farm on his land, I would have no claim against him, regardless of it interfering with my use of my land. I did not ask him to promise not to do so. If I were worried about that possibility, I would show up on his door with a contract, and ask him to sign it. I would expect that he would ask for compensation, since his land would now be worth less, due to it being restricted as to potential use. Joe |
|
|
|
|
Logged
|
"An armed society is a polite society" - this does not mean that we are polite because we fear each other.
We are not civilized because we are armed; we are armed because we are civilized..
|
|
|
|
sj
|
You're not thinking ahead very much, Joe. "If you don't want to live next to a pig farm, don't" forgets the fact that sometimes the pig farm comes to you. You may have bought this property ten years ago, put a perfume shop on it, and then last year had your neighbor decide to put a pig farm right on the property line, destroying your business. I would argue that that's a trespass and that the owner of the perfume shop should be compensated for the loss of property value, since his land is no longer good for having perfume shops on it. If it is still profitable for the pig farm to pay the compensation and stay open, then that is the most efficient outcome and should happen.
Now, if the pig farm was there first, then the "compensation" will happen because the price of the property will be lower when you buy it (which means that the current owner loses resale value, which he should be compensated for, but you are simply compensated in the lower market value. Besides, you know when you buy it that you can't have a perfume shop on it). So the "I was there first" argument matters in that situation.
To argue that property that you bought for 100K and is now worth 20K because your neighbor opened up a pig farm has not been trespassed is ridiculous to me.
That's the law, and I think it makes a lot of sense and is within the FSP statement of intent as it is within the maximum role of government to protect life, liberty and property. You should have contracted with your neighbor, such that he agreed not to put in a pig farm. Your failure to plan for the future does not constitute a trespass on his part. Your argument borders on the asinine because it expects a person to "plan for the future" by paying people not to harm his property in the inumerable ways that they could do it. Putting up a pig farm is just one of literally millions of ways that smell, noise or chemical pollution can destroy another's property. The responsibility lays on the person HARMING another's property, that is the person causing the harsh stench or the loud noises. The responsibility isn't on the victims. A number of years back, the owners of my house and land wanted to increase their land holdings, and purchased a parcel of land from their neighbor. That neighbor didn't mind selling the land, but wanted to make sure that it would stay as open field, and not end up subdivided as a building lot. Therefore, that neighbor stipulated as a condition of the sale that it never be developed. You're not even in the ball park of what we're discussing. We're not talking about people selling land with stipulations. We're talking about land that doesn't and never did belong to you being used in a way that harms your property. Similarly, if he were to build a pig farm on his land, I would have no claim against him, regardless of it interfering with my use of my land. I did not ask him to promise not to do so. If I were worried about that possibility, I would show up on his door with a contract, and ask him to sign it. I would expect that he would ask for compensation, since his land would now be worth less, due to it being restricted as to potential use.
Joe
Actually, you do have a claim against him, as a matter of fact. Just because you didn't ask him to promise not to harm your property doesn't mean a thing. I didn't contract with the 6 Billion people in the world that they wouldn't punch me in the face steal my car, put compost on my lawn or any of the other millions of ways a person's rights may be violated, but if they do, that's a trespass on my person or property and I can defend myself....AND....a government that protects me from such acts falls within the statement of intent, which is how this conversation started. All this to say, there are a range of libertarians that join the Free State Project and the purists/anarchists/etc shouldn't demand that people's beliefs mesh to theirs. There's a reason the statement of intent is worded the way it is. It's so people like me and you, Joe, can work together for liberty in the same project, even though we disagree about pig farms and barking dogs. |
|
|
|
|
Logged
|
Moved? Update your address so we can move the counter and get more people to follow you! To update, go to www.freestateproject.org/userClick on "edit" Click on "FSP Registration Information" Update your address and click "submit"
|
|
|
|
B.D. Ross
|
You're not thinking ahead very much, Joe. "If you don't want to live next to a pig farm, don't" forgets the fact that sometimes the pig farm comes to you. You may have bought this property ten years ago, put a perfume shop on it, and then last year had your neighbor decide to put a pig farm right on the property line, destroying your business. I would argue that that's a trespass and that the owner of the perfume shop should be compensated for the loss of property value, since his land is no longer good for having perfume shops on it. If it is still profitable for the pig farm to pay the compensation and stay open, then that is the most efficient outcome and should happen.
Now, if the pig farm was there first, then the "compensation" will happen because the price of the property will be lower when you buy it (which means that the current owner loses resale value, which he should be compensated for, but you are simply compensated in the lower market value. Besides, you know when you buy it that you can't have a perfume shop on it). So the "I was there first" argument matters in that situation.
To argue that property that you bought for 100K and is now worth 20K because your neighbor opened up a pig farm has not been trespassed is ridiculous to me.
That's the law, and I think it makes a lot of sense and is within the FSP statement of intent as it is within the maximum role of government to protect life, liberty and property. You should have contracted with your neighbor, such that he agreed not to put in a pig farm. Your failure to plan for the future does not constitute a trespass on his part. A number of years back, the owners of my house and land wanted to increase their land holdings, and purchased a parcel of land from their neighbor. That neighbor didn't mind selling the land, but wanted to make sure that it would stay as open field, and not end up subdivided as a building lot. Therefore, that neighbor stipulated as a condition of the sale that it never be developed. If that neighbor had not insisted on that stipulation, then there would be no harm to him if I were to build a house on that lot. He could not claim harm, just because he lacked the foresight to plan for that eventuality. Similarly, if he were to build a pig farm on his land, I would have no claim against him, regardless of it interfering with my use of my land. I did not ask him to promise not to do so. If I were worried about that possibility, I would show up on his door with a contract, and ask him to sign it. I would expect that he would ask for compensation, since his land would now be worth less, due to it being restricted as to potential use. I dunno if I'd call that trespass. Maybe private nuisance. Or tortious interference with a business advantage. Then again, it'll probably have to be an equitable remedy. Depends why he's now built a pig farm after 10 years. Either way, you don't have to get someone to promise not to injure you... that's silly. And a consideration that isn't being taken into account is that by showing up on a neighbor's doorstep and asking him to sign a mere contract, that still doesn't make the promise binding upon the promisor's successors in interest. |
|
|
|
|
Logged
|
freestatelaw.com - Get plugged in with what you need to know about New Hampshire law and legislative efforts.
|
|
|
|
sj
|
I dunno if I'd call that trespass. Maybe private nuisance. Or tortious interference with a business advantage.
Nowadays yes, but in the early days of common law, it was called trespass. Since I was talking at the philosophical basis for such laws, I kind of reverted to the old theory of such laws. No, I wouldn't go into court and call it trespass Then again, it'll probably have to be an equitable remedy. Depends why he's now built a pig farm after 10 years. Either way, you don't have to get someone to promise not to injure you... that's silly. And a consideration that isn't being taken into account is that by showing up on a neighbor's doorstep and asking him to sign a mere contract, that still doesn't make the promise binding upon the promisor's successors in interest.
True. |
|
|
|
|
Logged
|
Moved? Update your address so we can move the counter and get more people to follow you! To update, go to www.freestateproject.org/userClick on "edit" Click on "FSP Registration Information" Update your address and click "submit"
|
|
|
|
MaineShark
|
Either way, you don't have to get someone to promise not to injure you... that's silly. He didn't injure you, because he did not violate any expectation which you reasonably had. And a consideration that isn't being taken into account is that by showing up on a neighbor's doorstep and asking him to sign a mere contract, that still doesn't make the promise binding upon the promisor's successors in interest. It certainly can. You just stipulate that he cannot sell without obtaining a like contract from the new buyer. If he fails to do so, then you have an actionable claim against him. Very, very simply to achieve. Joe |
|
|
|
|
Logged
|
"An armed society is a polite society" - this does not mean that we are polite because we fear each other.
We are not civilized because we are armed; we are armed because we are civilized..
|
|
|
|
Dreepa
|
Sheriff Taylor is probably the best sheriff in NH.
Dreepa would make a good sheriff... What say you Dreepa? I was joking( I just watched a Andy Griffith show with my kid right before I posted that. Yeah I might make an ok sheriff..  (I am sure my wife would not want me to run) The key is that in NH sheriffs are not as big a deal as out west. The whole county structure is 'weak'... that might be a good thing. |
|
|
|
|
Logged
|
|
|
|
|
B.D. Ross
|
I dunno if I'd call that trespass. Maybe private nuisance. Or tortious interference with a business advantage.
Nowadays yes, but in the early days of common law, it was called trespass. Since I was talking at the philosophical basis for such laws, I kind of reverted to the old theory of such laws. No, I wouldn't go into court and call it trespass Then again, it'll probably have to be an equitable remedy. Depends why he's now built a pig farm after 10 years. Either way, you don't have to get someone to promise not to injure you... that's silly. And a consideration that isn't being taken into account is that by showing up on a neighbor's doorstep and asking him to sign a mere contract, that still doesn't make the promise binding upon the promisor's successors in interest.
True. I wan't trying to play cause-of-action roulette. Just saying, distinctions in trespass have emerged and now they have other names for their own little niches. Like the latter one, "tortious interference"; has a couple of different names. Call it trespass and some people will go, "Eh? Who trespassed where?" (I think there was a thread a while back where I talked about trespass and nuisance.) It's really easy to blur the lines between these tortious acts and any incidental contractual breaches. Wasn't criticizing at all.  Either way, you don't have to get someone to promise not to injure you... that's silly. He didn't injure you, because he did not violate any expectation which you reasonably had. And a consideration that isn't being taken into account is that by showing up on a neighbor's doorstep and asking him to sign a mere contract, that still doesn't make the promise binding upon the promisor's successors in interest. It certainly can. You just stipulate that he cannot sell without obtaining a like contract from the new buyer. If he fails to do so, then you have an actionable claim against him. Very, very simply to achieve. Joe Not as simple as you might think. People aren't always honest and they don't have perfect memories. Even if the seller promises that he won't sell unless he gets a similar agreement from the buyer, this doesn't make the original agreement binding on the buyer. It just means, if the seller conveys the property without getting a similar agreement from the buyer, the seller breached the original contract and the seller will have to pay the neighbor (and the agreement is already of questionable enforceability and is borderline punitive). But that still won't achieve what the neighbor wants. If it's a mere contract and the buyer has no reason to know of the agreement, the buyer will probably take the property free of any of the seller's promises to neighbor. The neighbor will have no way to stop buyer from doing anything that seller was forbidden to do. Essentially, A and B are trying to promise between themselves that C cannot do X. But C isn't even a party to the original agreement. And maybe this is the kind of environment some would prefer. If that's the case, it just may not be possible for neighbor to get what he wants--even by contracting with his neighbors. For better or for worse. |
|
|
|
|
Logged
|
freestatelaw.com - Get plugged in with what you need to know about New Hampshire law and legislative efforts.
|
|
|
|
coyote
|
Either way, you don't have to get someone to promise not to injure you... that's silly. He didn't injure you, because he did not violate any expectation which you reasonably had. [ Who should be the final arbiter of what is a reasonable expectation? (Not a loaded question, I sincerely would like to know myself.) Surely it must not simply be the one who has the most might. |
|
|
|
|
Logged
|
|
|
|
|
 |
Home
Help
Search
Login
Register
