Republicans Often Trash Property Rights As Well
It appears that Arizonans are all for property rights until a Goodwill store tries to open in their neighborhood. And then not so much. A group led in part by my former Republican Congressman John Shaddegg believes that their "right" to determine how other people's property is used were trampled by allowing a local strip mall to rent a large vacant store space to a legitimate business.
Basically, these residents live in a small prosperous neighborhood called Moon Valley surrounded by less prosperous areas. There are apparently not enough residents in this neighborhood to support the upscale commercial boutiques they would like to see, so their preference is that this poor landlord leave his property vacant rather than rent it to a business that might cause these folks to encounter a poor person on the street. I am sure these folks would say they have no problems with poor (likely mostly Hispanic) folks per se, but not in their neighborhood! (By the way, in this town we have the nicest Goodwill stores I have ever seen -- my daughter loves to shop for funky stuff there).
I don't think I am being too hard on them. Here is one letter to the Mayor's office from a resident:
What does this mean? Quite simply, we now have a mega store/WAREHOUSE in Moon Valley. Goodwill has closed all the surrounding stores to create a "funnel" effect whereby all the surrounding neighborhoods will flock to Moon Valley for a deal. And, they are now free to import as many goods as they like from anywhere they choose to fill up their new mega store and bring loyal Goodwill shoppers to Moon Valley by the droves.
I sat in the parking lot of the Shaw Butte Plaza today and was so saddened. I thought, "We are such a wonderful, unique, special neighborhood, why would you do this to us? Was furthering your political career worth it?" Because, make no mistake, you have sold us out.
I guess all that brown skin walking around is going to destroy her little bit of specialness. Tough.
We have the same thing going on in our neighborhood. The country club on whose golf course many of the houses in my area are located was recently revamped. It was redesigned into a links-style course that is very unusual in the Phoenix market. I actually thought this was a pretty smart move -- when there are something like 200 golf courses in the area, it makes sense to try to be unique.
Well, most everyone in the neighborhood thinks it is ugly -- I don't live on the course but I actually kind of like it. But the sort of shaggy, wild look they adopted for it is not at all what Arizonans are used to. I will confess they did some things that seem crazy to me, like removing all the trees, but my general reaction has been, well, its their land. My neighbors do not share my insouciance however, and have freaked, writing letters and threatening lawsuits. Everyone wants property rights for themselves but veto power over what all their neighbors do with their property.
Disclosure: I grew up in Houston, so zoning is foreign to me.
marque2:
It isn't republicans - it is stuck up people. I live in a small conservative town in San Diego county called Poway. Not only does it have thrift shops there is an entire mall devoted to them. In fact I think there are 6 including St Vincent De paul , salvation army, goodwill. Our goodwill recently opened in another mall with the trendy bagel place and natural food supermarket in a nice part of town with nary a complaint.
So maybe instead of blaming GOP - maybe just come to the realization that folks in AZ are just d*cks.
November 22, 2013, 1:35 pmHenryBowman419:
My fiancée, who was originally from Tempe, always checks out the Goodwill stores, especially near Scottsdale, whenever she visits (her mother still lives in Tempe). I've been in a couple, and they are pretty darn nice.
November 22, 2013, 2:07 pmMW:
"I guess all that brown skin walking around is going to destroy her little bit of specialness. Tough." You're a little quick to assign racism to that letter, where none is obviously present, don't you think?
November 22, 2013, 2:21 pmAnInquirer:
Warren,
November 22, 2013, 2:30 pmUsually you have good insights. But this time, I think you are stereotyping. You are assuming racism without evidence.
I have many times seen objections to what an owner wants to do to his / her property. The objection usually come from Democrats, not Republicans.
DB
marque2:
He is also assuming all those protesters are GOP as well. Only folks who protest stores in my town tend to be Union activists who don't like Walmart.
November 22, 2013, 2:37 pmTom Z:
I am confused. The letter says nothing about being republican and says nothing about racism or 'brown skinned' people. What is the point of making up facts for this article?
November 22, 2013, 3:03 pmmesaeconoguy:
Hey - back up, son.
1) You live in CA, so STFU re: property rights, eminent domain seizure capital of the country right now
2) Your only hope now - and Warren's - is that some asshole Repug (redundant, like economically ignorant Dumbasscrat) defends you.
And that's getting very, very rare nowadays.
November 22, 2013, 4:58 pmmarque2:
I am sorry - I live in a town that allows good wills to open up on the nice mall with trendy bagel places and the Sprout healthy supermarket in the rich part of town. I don't think anyone got eminent domained to get the goodwill put up. They signed a lease. The town council does try to maintain some control but are pretty lenient - allowing a bright orange and yellow taco stand without any fuss (definitely oogly) Lowes wanted to come in they said sure, etc. I don't live in San Francisco.
You can stuff it in your own face if you have no clue about what you are talking about. But thanks for playing.
November 22, 2013, 5:55 pmmesaeconoguy:
Then you better read up here, dude
http://www.reuters.com/article/2013/09/11/us-richmond-eminentdomain-idUSBRE98A0FN20130911
And here too
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=crR6pBGMZ90
[just kiddin, kid.]
November 22, 2013, 6:04 pmCJ Brooks:
These are the same kind of people who voted for Prop. 207 (the Private Property Rights Protection Initiative) several years ago, while railing against the injustices of Kelo. They failed to see both sides of the property rights coin then, as now.
November 22, 2013, 6:38 pmAIG:
Property rights does not imply that you can do whatever you want on your property. You are limited by the externalities you create and the nuisance you create. There's no question that this will create negative externalitites for the people there, hence, they should protest, and have the right to protest.
"Libertarians" need to shill out a bit and realize that property and freedom does not mean that you can do ANYTHING you want. If that were the case, there would be no property rights, because your property rights would be constantly trampled by other people's externalitites. Hence, what limits your private property, is how your use of it impacts those around you. Obviously, in this case, it does.
Ridiculing them isn't a very convincing argument.
November 22, 2013, 6:48 pmmahtso:
The blogger frequently cries that others are racist and that he is just reporting what they think. A little while back he chastised some liberal blogger for doing what he fairly routinely does (assigning views to people and then saying that this shows how the assignees think, not how he does).
November 22, 2013, 8:07 pmjdt:
If they didn't want Goodwill going into that building, why did they not lease it themselves and put in a business they find more wonderful, special, unique, etc?
November 23, 2013, 7:52 ammarque2:
I think you might want to take my advice. Your article is from some lefty San Francisco suburb about 500 miles away from where I live. and the City of Richmond has no powers over the City of Poway where I live.
Second we are talking about Goodwills. My town has I think six of these (different brands SA, SVDP, etc) and a whole mall devoted to thrift shops and consignment stores, though Goodwill decided to go to the more upscale area. For a conservative city of 50,000 I think we have more than our fair share and are happy they are there. And my point is really that it isn't a GOP problem, nor is it an issue of not liking Hispanics - if you don't like Hispanics, it is pretty difficult to live in Southern California.
Therefore my point that Arizona folks must therefore be d*cks is valid - because it certainly isn't a GOP or AntiHispanic thing elsewhere. Noone protested the Goodwill in the nice area, of the conservative middle class town, where I live. Of course Warren is not really telling the full story, and assuming that those are all conservatives protesting, and assuming they are protesting Hispanics wink wink. Maybe all of California, isn't as bad as you stereotypically think
November 23, 2013, 8:10 ammesaeconoguy:
Sure kid.
If you think your situation is in any way different because you are located in a slightly different section of the People’s Republic of Kalifornia, you are in for a very very rude awakening, possibly shortly.
November 23, 2013, 12:02 pmCanvasback:
If by "shill out a bit" you mean they should cave when money talks, I disagree.
November 23, 2013, 2:35 pmJohn Say:
While your critique is correct, the letter says everything about the right of some members of a community to do as they wish with they own property, and it bemoans the destruction of that community by an influx of outsiders.
November 23, 2013, 5:27 pmmarque2:
I was only using Warren's logic against him. He was saying that it was GOP/Hispanic hate. I have shown otherwise, and therefore his conclusion is wrong. I probably shouldn't have said AZ folks are d*cks - but those folks in the picture definitely are, which is probably the reason they are protesting.
Note, it is interesting that the image above seems to have a Hispanic person protesting with everyone else. Is she one of those self loathing types?
Anyway, I know CA is not long for the world. The small conservative outposts left are overwhelmed.
November 23, 2013, 5:32 pmJohn Say:
Your argument is ludicrous.
Do you have the right to regulate my procreation - because you beleive it might create some "externality".
Your exercise of your rights is limited only by ACTUAL harm to others - not hypothetical inconvenience. Further government is only entitle to excercise prior restraint on acts of violence.
Should your non-violent excercise of your rights harm others at MOST you are obligated to compensate them for the harm you cause.
Their belief that they MIGHT be harmed does not give them the right to infringe on your freedom.
These principles might be alien to you, but they are the only rational basis for a society that actually works. A society where anyone can restrain others freedom based on any arguable externality can not function.
November 23, 2013, 5:36 pmJohn Say:
Maybe race is a factor in this instance - but that is not evidenced by your post. And the claim against republicans is equally unsupported.
But whether the politics are left or right, and whether the objections are based on race or not the attempt to block the goodwill store is repugnant.
Further whether this is an instance of republicans infringing on the property rights of others or not - there are still plenty. They are abundant in my community - thought the democrats controlling the city easily outdo the republicans controlling the rest of the county.
And whether the issue in this instance is race or not, empowering government to infringe on peoples rights inevitably leads to vile and sometimes racist use of that power.
November 23, 2013, 5:44 pmAIG:
Typo. I meant "chill out a bit.
November 24, 2013, 6:21 pmAIG:
There is "actual" harm to people. If their property prices fall because of an activity that this business attracts, then harm is done.
This isn't an "arguable" or "hypothetical" inconvenience. The property rights of such neighborhoods are high because of the businesses that are there, the people who live there and the people who frequent the neighborhood. Like it or not, this is a fact.
Nothing to do with race, but obviously a store like Goodwill attracts a certain type of customer.
Now, this doesn't mean that the business cannot open or should not open. But people who live there have the RIGHT and the obligation to say "hey wait a minute. You presence here will affect me, and I CAN PUT A DOLLAR PRICE TO IT, because my property value reflects it".
This is a pretty basic property rights issue. All nuisances and all externalities are subjective, until they are proven in court or through some other negotiation to be actual. In the mean time, they can protest.
If "libertarians" start down the road of "you can't prevent me from doing anything I want", then property rights go out the window. there can be no property rights unless they take into account how your property affects my property. At some level, nuisance laws come into play
November 24, 2013, 6:28 pmAIG:
The government is always involved in your property rights. Laws protect your property rights, and laws are enforced by the government. Property rights, however, also take into account how your property affects my property, and if I can SHOW in a dollar amount just how your property affects mine, then nuisance laws come into play.
In this mythical non-existent battle between "republicans" and "libertarians", it seems to me that "republicans" are applying private property laws as they have been understood since Roman times...correctly. It seems to me "libertarians" have forgotten some basics of Common Law (although, of course, I am aware that some "libertarian" strains reject Common Law traditions. If some of you are that kind of "libertarian", than clearly nothing I say will matter)
November 24, 2013, 6:32 pmAIG:
Sure, that is one solution. However, that solution only applies if the monetary harm that Goodwill does to the property values of the people in the area equals or exceeds the cost of leasing the property. But, what if it is lower? It is still a cost imposed on the people living nearby. Shouldn't Goodwill compensate them, or if the compensation is too high, not move there?
Ultimately, it is a matter for the law to decide.
November 24, 2013, 6:34 pmBram:
Shocking! It rained in Phoenix?
November 25, 2013, 7:27 amJohn Say:
If you do not want the owner of the building to rent to goodwill - pay him not to.
As to your property value claim - It really is that your property is worth MORE because your local government is discriminating against others. You may personally have the right to discriminate, but your local government does not.
You have no more right to prevent a store owner from renting to goodwill, then to dictate who your neighbor can sell his house to.
You ability to put a price to the value of your local government discriminating against others on your behalf does not make that moral, legal, ethical - or even your money. It is a false gain, not a loss.
November 25, 2013, 11:30 amJohn Say:
So the liberal meme about discrimination is again false.
Businesses do not typically discriminate, once again it is governments that force discrimination on us.
The landlord is merely trying to get the best value for his property. He has determined rightly or wrongly that is by renting to goodwill. Goodwill has decided this is a good location for a store. But the local community - using government as their agents is trying to discriminate.
Proof of what libertarians have claimed about discrimination all along.
November 25, 2013, 11:35 amSustained discrimination requires the force of law. Individual liberty ultimately works to errode discrimination as it is not in peoples interest.
John Say:
The legitimate role of government is in securing our rights.
Your property rights end at the boundaries of your property.
They do NOT take into account indirect affects.
Your ability to demonstrate that when government interferes with a right of others, the value of your right increases, does not make that increase yours by right.
If government limits on the free speech of others made it more profitable for you to excercise yours - is that legitimate ? Would you suffer a loss should others have their speech rights returned ?
While my claims about rights are not rooted in common law, nor would I claim that Romans got everything right. Government restrictions on the use of property are relatively modern - they are not rooted in roman or common law, and for the most part run counter to them.
If "that kind of libertarian" means someone opposed to government creating new rights out of whole cloth - then yes, I am "that kind of libertarian". The role of government is to secure our actual natural rights and maximize our liberty to the extent it does not reduce the real liberty of others.
What we call people seeking to use government to create new rights from whole cloth is progressives.
November 25, 2013, 11:44 amalbkmb:
That stuck out to me too. So, I also read the linked article and found no reference to skin color or race. I've noticed before the knee-jerk reaction to perceived (by the author) affronts against people of Mexican heritage.
I would presume from the article that these people have a problem with low income attracting businesses. Perhaps he was referencing other info that he didn't share or it says something about the author that he associates low income with "brown skin".
November 25, 2013, 2:26 pmAIG:
There is a reason some "libertarians" are not taken seriously by most people. This is a good example of such a reason.
This isn't "discrimination". It is absolutely ludicrous to make this into a "race" issue. Insane. This is a basic property rights issue. You'd think people who talk all day long about "property property property!" would understand what a nuisance is.
November 25, 2013, 4:13 pmAIG:
1) Of course property rights take into account indirect effects. That's the WHOLE reason property right law exists. If you don't control for indirect effects, you don't have private property. It cannot exist.
2) Forgetting the law for a minute, taking into account indirect effects also leads to more economic efficiency, especially in a situation like this where the costs of identifying the harm of coordinating are relatively low.
3) Free speech is not an issue comparable to property. Property has a dollar value associated with it. Speech is a "public good" in which my speech doesn't interfere with your speech, no matter the amount or type. Hence why it cannot be limited. Property is a private good. If by your logic speech and property were comparable, there should be NO private property rights whatsoever.
4) Government restrictions on property, and property law, is Common Law. Some "libertarians" like to invent alternative universes where the laws of humanity don't apply (or of physics, sometimes), and pretend that somehow that is how the world works. This case, for example, is a BASIC case of economic externality. Nothing more complicated than that. Instead, you people have turned it on its head and made it about "race". Congratulations.
5) By "that kind of libertarian" I mean people like Walter Block, David Friedman, and the gang at Mises and similar types. They get property rights COMPLETELY wrong, as it has been understood by Anglo-Saxon civilization for the last 1,000 years, they get economics completely wrong, and invent a utopian alternative of the law which cannot possibly be applied in reality. At least, David Friedman admits to as much, and he admits that he does it for s**ts n' giggles. But the rest of them are just scary in how....hard they try to ignore...all of the classical liberal tradition.
6) This isn't a "new right". This is the most basic right in the Anglo-Saxon understanding of "rights", and the most basic right in the Common Law tradition: the right not to have your property damaged. See, this is what I mean that some of you people just don't "get" property rights. If I damage the value of your property by an activity that I do in my property, in a direct or indirect way, then I am causing economic harm to you. I am imposing a negative externality on you.
That's not a "new right". That IS property rights.
If you'd read the article, you'd have read that these people raised $1.4 million to stop Goodwill, so at the very least, Goodwill's presence causes $1.4 million in damages to the property of people there. Coordination costs being as they are, mean that this damage is probably much higher. It was the political process itself...i.e. the government...that pushed this store development through despite the economic cost it imposes on the people there.
The government in this case is saying "despite the fact that this store will cause you at least $1.4 million in damages, we will create laws which shield them from having to compensate you for the damages." The "new right" being invented here is the right for "businesses" to utilize the power of government to not have to compensate for negative externalitites or other nuisances they may impose on others.
November 25, 2013, 4:33 pmAIG:
1) This isn't discrimination. Crying racist racist racist all day long, isn't going to make this a race issue. Its pathetic that this even needs to be said.
2) These people raised $1.4 million to stop this from happening. This means that the damage imposed on them is at least $1.4 million.
3) Paying Goodwill not to come may not solve the problem, because, again, that only works if the damage Goodwill imposes exceeds the benefits to Goodwill. That is not likely to be the case. However, damage should be compensated nonetheless, whether it is $1 or $10 million.
4) What the government is doing here is saying "despite the fact that Goodwill will cause at least $1.4 million in damages to you, we will allow them to not compensate you, anyway.". I.e., what the government is doing here is...taking away people's property rights.
5) There are nuisance laws which allow me to take action against my neighbor, or whomever my neighbor decides to sell their home to, if I can show what the damage is. So yes, I CAN, do something about whom my neighbor sells their home to.
The difference here between a single home owner and a whole community...is a numbers game. In the case of a single homeowner, the damage may be small enough that taking legal action may not be worth it; i.e. the transaction cost would be prohibitively high, and therefore I don't do anything about it. In the case of several hundred neighbors, then the damage caused far outweighs the transaction cost, and legal action can be taken.
November 25, 2013, 4:56 pmobloodyhell:
}}} Everyone wants property rights for themselves but veto power over what all their neighbors do with their property.
Yuppies in particular... who aren't Republicans.
}}} Republicans Often Trash Property Rights As Well
Ummmm. And what evidence do you have that these are all Republicans, first, and not RINOs, second. I mean, your state DOES keep re-electing McCain, doesn't it? For that to keep happening requires an awful lot of RINOs there, seems to me.
November 25, 2013, 10:34 pmobloodyhell:
}}} 1) Of course property rights take into account indirect effects. That's the WHOLE reason property right law exists. If you don't control for indirect effects, you don't have private property. It cannot exist.
By all means, cite me where this is not a recent development of "property rights". There are some historical precedents with regards to water rights, but that's about it.
}}} They get property rights COMPLETELY wrong, as it has been understood by Anglo-Saxon civilization for the last 1,000 years, they get economics completely wrong, and invent a utopian alternative of the law which cannot possibly be applied in reality.
And your historical authority on property rights law derives from...?
November 25, 2013, 10:39 pmobloodyhell:
What the hell does this have to do with Kelo, which is the government STEALING property by abusing eminent domain, so as to give it to someone who would pay more in taxes?
November 25, 2013, 10:41 pmobloodyhell:
I will point out that the two biggest racists I know of with a college education are both self-described "yellow dog Democrats"... and it's the "soft bigotry of low expectations", more so than overt anti-brown skin. I do question if these people are actually Republicans, or, more likely, RINOs.
November 25, 2013, 10:47 pmCraig L:
There is nothing concrete and measurable about the supposed property value reductions caused by a Goodwill store here. How exactly can these NIMBYs isolate the effect of a Goodwill on the value of their homes? Vague claims of damage to property value and "uniqueness of neghborhood" are just crutches that these people use to keep out businesses they personally don't like. The grocery store Aldi gets this same treatment on occasion, all because poorer people might shop there.
November 25, 2013, 11:06 pmJohn Say:
1). This is clearly discrimination. These people do not want a goodwill. That is discrimination. what is in question is whether it is RACIAL discrimination. Further they are demanding that government discriminate for them.
2). Back to stupid math games. If these people raised $1.4M that means the value to them of keeping Goodwill out is atleast $1.4M. That says nothing of harm. If I think I am going to win the lottery, but I do not, I did not loose $300M. An outcome different from the one you want, or even the status quo - is not HARM.
If they raised $1.4M to keep goodwill out - I strongly suspect the owner of the property would have been happy to take the money evict GoodWill, and even pay damages to GoodWill.
3). You are correct - sort of. They are not paying $1.4M to prevent goodwill from coming. They are paying $1.4M to prevent ANYONE they do not like from coming. Which loops back to 2. There is not $1.4M of harm he by any measure. But the is $1.4M in value to these people to keep EVERYONE they do not want out. Unfortunately for them - outside their own personal property they have no right to exclude others.
4). What government should be doing here is saying there never was a right to control others use of their own property. Absent direct harm to you - in your own space, such as polluting your water, any loss in value because you do not like your neighbors, is a loss of something that was never yours in the firstplace.
5). The existance of stupid laws does nto make them right. We used to have Jim Crow laws. Slavery is in the constitution.
I have zero problems with individuals acting as they please here. I do not care if they organize. I do not care if they sue. I do not care if they picket, or buy out goodwills lease or ... But I do care greatly if they leverage the government to impose their will on others by force. The owner of the property has a right to rent his property to whoever he pleases.
The remainder of the community has no right to deny him that right - even if they perceive that as devaluing their property.
Value is subjective. What actual non-subjective harm has occured that devalued the property ? The value that has been lost is one that was never theirs in the first place - it is a presumed right to exclude others from property that is not yours. Even if there is a real loss in value, there is not a real harm from a purely subjective change in value.
FINALLY;
Your entire argument is nuts. Real minorities moving into a neighborhood demonstrably devalues the neighborhood. Please explain why this is different than that ?
November 25, 2013, 11:43 pmJohn Say:
You are making typical progressive mistakes.
1). Claiming something does not make it so.
Property rights give you actual control of your real property - not indirect control of someone else's. Though our laws occasionally screw this up, you can not actually build a workable system where one persons subjective intangible and indirect effects allow them to restrict anothers actual rights.
Your scheme actually destroys the real rights of property owners.
2). Aside from the fact that your economic argument is crap. Even if it were true, that would not allow government to step in.
Government is force. You are essentially saying that economic efficiency justifies violence. Is that really where you wish to go ?
3). Again - Value is subjective. And in this instance the loss you are claiming is both hypothetical and subjective, and it is a loss of something that was never yours in the first place - the right to exclude others from property that is not yours.
Rights come from nature - not twisted statist concepts like public good. I can argue anything is a public good. Plantation owners argued slavery was. Free speech is a right because you have it in nature and surrendering it is not necescary to live in society.
Speech rights and property rights have little or no negative interaction. Your assertion to the contrary is false.
6). Yes, you have a right to noth have your property ACTUALLY damaged. But you never had the right to control others use of their property because doing so might make yours more valueable. Again these people are losing something that was never theirs in the first place. The enhanced value to their property because those they do not desire do not live, work or transact nearby.
If you actually want the right to exclude them, the legitimate way to do that, is to BUY as much surrounding property as possible, so that your borders are far away.
If this town has the right to exclude Goodwill, can we exclude good will from the entire county based on the same loss of value argument ? Can we exclude it from an entire state ? The country ?
You are not asserting some old Roman or Anglo-Saxon property right, but a fairly modern and quite fallacious progressive one, that has no actual roots in common law.
Langauge of "Negative externalities" are almost always the beginings of a crappy statist argument - usually progressive.
If those "externailities are real harm - not subjective. You have a real cause of action. Otherwise you are just twisting the law to throw a temper tantrum.
Regardless, nobel laureate Ronald Coase addressed this in the Coase theorum.
Absent insuperable transaction costs, externalities are best resolved by bargaining.
Subsequent work has strongly suggested that even accounting for high transaction costs, government intervention to resolve externality problems real or imagined, nearly always makes things worse.
You twisted claim about government shielding business in this instance is ludicrous. It is the same logic that says we know better how to make all of your choices for you. Cede all your rights, and we (government) will tell you what to do, protect you, and care for you. It is a scheme that always fails.
The role of government is protect rights, not take them from you for your own good.
If your ACTIONS cause real harm - not declines in the subjective value of others. you are responsible for that harm.
Government a priori protecting you from potentially harming others is itself harmful.
November 26, 2013, 12:18 amJohn Say:
I have no idea whether this particular instance is or is not a race issue. Race has nothing to do with my argument. I have no LEGAL problems with private discrimination on whatever basis you might choose.
It is only government that is obligated to treat us all equally.
I understand exactly what a nuisiance is. It is something you are entitled to use every legal private means at your disposal to escape. And something government should stay far far away from, as it inevitably ends of trading one person or groups rights for another more powerful groups wishes.
You are not entitled you legal protection from annoyance, inconvenience, bother, or irritation by others.
BTW the municiplaity in this case is clearly discriminating. The only question is what is the basis for that discrimination. Contrary to the state of modern law, there are very very few legitimate basis for public discrimination, and very very few legitimate limits to private discrimination. Beyond an "libertarian" conceptions, you end up with a horrible tangled mess otherwise.
When you create rights from thin air, or from government dictat, or idiocies like public good, when you restrict private discrimination and expend public discrimination, you inevitably end up - as in this instance with government trying to please the most powerful interest, rather than its primary legitimate task - protecting rights.
Even in the highly unlikely event that your fallacious subjective claim of harm based on losing something that was never yours to begin with, the appropriate means of redress is to bargain with the property owner or seek damages from the courts. Not to push local government into bizarre games weighing interests against rights, which ultimately do nothing but corrode government.
November 26, 2013, 12:34 amUndisclosed:
Here in the real world, having no control over who moves in next door to you is a risk that you assume by buying property. As others have touched on, there is no realistic way of quantifying any damage this might or might not cause to property values, and thus no reasonable way of quantifying the compensation you feel anyone is due. You cannot just vaguely demand money from someone without citing a specific figure.
November 27, 2013, 5:08 pmmarkm:
"No true Scotsman..."
I suspect that Warren identifies these people as Republicans because they register to vote as Republicans, they run for public office as Republicans, and they are elected in a majority Republican town. They aren't *your* idea of true Republicans, but they are Republicans. There's no law banning unprincipled scoundrels and the sheeple that vote for them from either party.
December 2, 2013, 4:56 pmJudy Hansen Sanders:
I dont know about the Goodwill There!!!! But working for them here THe Greater east Bay Fairfield,ca. to be exact. Worst Company I have ever worked for as far as I use to eat,breathe, talk ,live ,everything i owned had the logo GOODWILL on it I made most of the things myself I was the most faithful worker they ever had until The manager at The Fairfield store accused me of discounting at the register. Because I was nice to a homeless kid and wanted to find the poor kid a pair of donated socks in the back?????they fired me without even looking at the video Yes i got my unemployment Still The Goodwill is made up by a bunch of CROOKS!!!! They are the BIGGEST SCAM ARTIST i have ever seen after i was fired i started looking into their financal records and for ALL the peoples Donations $$$$$$$$ Where does it all GO!!!!!! not put back into the community like they said NO,NO i'am talking millions,trillions, of dallors with no money to restock and the employee's they say their helping No its a 6mo. training Then you loose everything again unless you've worked your ass off so hard the store doesnt want to loose you Untill another manager comes in and she or he does'nt like you then your gone they ruin LIFE's if you ask me there made up of people giving a second chance to But they just let the wrong people make wrong decisions Look at the one's down here now their going under NObody shop this one anymore their are unfair to there WORKERS TOO Glad I got all that off my chest Thanks and Goodluck on the one that's enter your community Judy Hansen Fair field ca. my email address is judyhansanders@gmail,com if any one cares to get back with me
March 21, 2014, 4:34 am