Submitted by Aecetia on February 18, 2011 – 2:06pm.
EconProf wrote:
This is an interesting thread, because it delves into the issue of who really owns these beautiful old properties.
I love to drive by the old houses of Golden Hill, South Park, and Mission Hills and enjoy the different eras and styles they reveal. In doing so, I am deriving a positive externality courtesy of the home owners who keep them up so well. Selfishly, I want them to keep them as they are forever. If I can convince the government to help me protect that right, I have, in effect, gained a property right over that owner.
Is that fair to the owner? Where you stand on this issue seems to depend on where you sit.
I usually agree with you Econ. You are all about common sense, but this time, I am on the side of the defenseless house. It depends on how much interest the government takes in the property as to what the decision is:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kelo_v._Cit…
Not sure these two items are really related. The Kelo decision allowed eminent domain to go berserk and take a perfectly good working class neighborhood for a private development that would yield more property taxes to the local government. In that case, the government rode roughshod over private property rights.
In the case of Jobs, or other owners who want to tear down or modify their structures to build something they prefer to live in, the owners may be prevented from doing so because the government wants the old classic structure to be preserved for looky-loos like me to enjoy viewing. In that case the government is infringing on the owner’s property right to do as he/she wants with their own property. The “external benefit” of neighbors and others to enjoy this old property takes precedence over the property owner’s rights. Legally, this is a form of “taking”, just as in the Kelo case, and it is done by our government.
