Pineapple Express: Someone Is Wrong on the Internet?

[Dannyalcatraz]

Local government -- which is elected, subject to public records and open meetings laws, etc. -- is more than capable of preventing actual dangers to the community.

In my experience, local governments can’t be bothered. They have bigger fish to fry. And sometimes, they don’t bother with those.

There’s a neighborhood here in D/FW that had to fight a property owner for years about their permitting illegal dumping on an undeveloped plot, and that case involved toxic chemicals. It made the local news a few times.

The city isn’t going to care much about your issue with the trees on the Jones’ property.

Civil courts can keep neighbors from torpedoing everyone else's property values (damage to property value is very easy to measure and, thus, show the court that someone's behavior has damaged you).

Court is expensive to you as a petitioner- your time and money will be used. You also generally need to show the damage is a result of an actionable cause, such as a faulty repair, intentional harm, or neglect, and that this action directly led to the property's diminished worth. Mere differences on aesthetic views aren’t going to satisfy basic pleadings. Worse, in most cases you won’t be able to sue unless and until the damage has been done unless the damage is reasonably foreseeable or already recognized in prior cases.

Not only that, the reward in most such cases will be strictly monetary. You’re probably not going to get an injunction or cease & desist. And once the case is over, it’s over.

Dealing with an HOA is usually handled via simple correspondence, and can be proactive. Where a court case is usually one & done, action via an HOA can be repeated and continuous. That’s good news if you’re trying to deal with a neighbor who routinely violates the Wheaton Rule.

HOAs are basically for people who want their aesthetic choices to rule the community.

You’re not completely wrong, but I think you’re oversimplifying.

 

[Dannyalcatraz]

Yeah, the local government should have been more involved at the building stage, but lots of jurisdictions will just say "hooray, tax dollars" and let new businesses do whatever they want.

Why would the city get involved?
The property owners were doing what they wanted with their land.

Even from the environmental impact standpoint, at most the city might be able to enforce a minimum number of trees remain on each plot or within a given square acreage within the new subdivision.

 

[Whizbang Dustyboots]

Why would the city get involved?
The property owners were doing what they wanted with their land.

Because most jurisdictions have rules about what one can do on their land, taking into account environmental impact, economic impact, how that activity factors into ongoing broader goals, etc. Zoning laws are the most obvious version of this, but it goes on from there.

You don't really want property owners to do whatever they want on their land, unless you're OK with waking up one day and finding out the empty plot of land next door is now a firing range or a toxic waste disposal facility, etc.

Cities absolutely can and do dictate what sorts of plants and in what quantity are on a property as part of the approval process that development typically has to go through.

 

[Alzrius]

You don't really want property owners to do whatever they want on their land, unless you're OK with waking up one day and finding out the empty plot of land next door is now a firing range or a toxic waste disposal facility, etc.

It doesn't even have to be that extreme. Twice in the last two years, owners of properties within a block of my own have tried to turn their houses into short-term rentals (e.g. an airbnb), and both times myself and other neighbors successfully petitioned the city to not allow them to do so.

 

[Dannyalcatraz]

Because most jurisdictions have rules about what one can do on their land, taking into account environmental impact, economic impact, how that activity factors into ongoing broader goals, etc. Zoning laws are the most obvious version of this, but it goes on from there.

My point was illustrating that the position that nobody should have an input on what you do on your own property is ultimately untenable in the context of a community.

Yes, governments (at all levels) do have those powers and more. But details matter. Houston is the 4th largest city in the USA. They have no zoning laws.

You don't really want property owners to do whatever they want on their land, unless you're OK with waking up one day and finding out the empty plot of land next door is now a firing range or a toxic waste disposal facility, etc.

I agree. That’s a major reason why I have no desire to live in Houston.

Cities absolutely can and do dictate what sorts of plants and in what quantity are on a property as part of the approval process that development typically has to go through.

They can and do…when it matters to them. (“Them” being the current political leadership of the municipality in question.) Making it matter/not matter to them costs financial and political capital.

When my Dad was part of a small group of MDs building a 2 story medical condo, the city was involved in almost every aspect of the project, including construction materials and having the MDs pay to install a turning lane to allow parking lot entry from the other side of a divided road.

In contrast, the city had taxpayers pay for similar roadwork for a multimillion dollar project a few miles away, and waived several other regulations that would have affected the architectural aesthetic the developers wanted.

 

[Scribe]

Houston is the 4th largest city in the USA. They have no zoning laws.

 

[Cadence]

My point was illustrating that the position that nobody should have an input on what you do on your own property is ultimately untenable in the context of a community.

Yes, governments (at all levels) do have those powers and more. But details matter. Houston is the 4th largest city in the USA. They have no zoning laws.

Holy cow, I can't imagine no zoning in a city.

A lot of the folks in the unincorporated areas around us are wishing they had some. There is lots of undeveloped land and huge lots whose owners never wanted to be told what they could do with it -- until some of their neighbors now want to put in subdivisions with all the traffic and the like that would bring.

At the other end of town size from Houston, the one we're in has a but under 20k people and does have zoning. Two of the councilmen and the mayor are in our neighborhood Facebook group. Doesn't guarantee everything gets dealt with all the time - but does get quick access to the folks working for the city, and for something less common if a critical mass of not-usual-complainers bring it up it gets attention.

 

[overgeeked]

Cool. So we can stop doing these stupid things, right?

 

[Whizbang Dustyboots]

Cool. So we can stop doing these stupid things, right?

View attachment 416414

Especially since Google and others already just take a snapshot of your internet activity in lieu of using a captcha and can see whether you're behaving like a person (and browsing relatively slowly) or a bot.

 

[Ryujin]

Especially since Google and others already just take a snapshot of your internet activity in lieu of using a captcha and can see whether you're behaving like a person (and browsing relatively slowly) or a bot.

Increasingly so. My web searches have been flagged as "possible bot activity" multiple times, over the last month. OK, I don't really show a lot of emotion most of the time and have RBF, but BOT?!