But, HD, in your own back yard, and throughout much of the West, the water rights ownership issue was and continues to be contentious. And, if my understanding is correct, they have continually been upheld in the courts as to benefit the greater good. Is the water flowing across your property any less real a resource than the air flowing from the neighborly pigsty, or the lightwaves reflected across the neighbors back yard? And should you be allowed complete control over it, to the disregard of the needs and desires of your community?
I'm being contrarian here-- I'm completely in favor of a persons' right to do what they will with what they own, but within the parameters set by the community. The issue has been confronted here in New England, in particular with waterfront views and access on the seacoast and lakes, and, similarly, is in the courts in New Hampsta right now, as certain municipalities are trying to tax some properties higher because of their view, considerieng it as much of an asset as water or minerals... It seems to me that we are entering a phase of very narrow semantical definitions regarding what is in fact an asset and a resource and who gets to control it. If other people want it-- water, animal, mineral--then it has value (we make a lot of money up here from people who come up just to "see" the mountains or the ocean...), and if it's valuable, can't it be taxed? Controlled? And why shouldn't it be managed "for the greater good", like a greenway, or a watercourse?
I guess my point is that it's a fairly narrow road we've asked these "busybodies" to tread, the ones we've elected to create our zoning laws. At what point do the rights of the individual and the rights of the greater community clash? And isn't it perhaps that that point is fluid and hard to pin down-- the old "I can't define pornography, but I know it when I see it' arguement? If he was told specifically not to build the house, because of some pre-existing rules that he was aware of, don't the folks we've put in charge of the society to some lesser or greater degree have the duty, much less the right, to enforce those laws? And isn't he culpable, because he willingly and knowingly broke those same laws, for whatever punishment they mete out?
I agree-- that castle is the best looking thing on that property. How can the neighbors complain, with the mess right next to it? But the fact is, they have complained. And he broke the rules. And at what point do you turn away from the duty that it is to enforce those rules-- "I killed someone, and got away with it for more then X amount of time-- therefore I shouldn't have to be brought to justice". Is that the pathway we want to enter into here?
As part of a society, then we have to have rules that show us how to get along with one another, written and unwriten. When they are broken, then that to me means that society, in some way, has broken down. Some crimes ARE victimless (Ask me how often I speed, for instance...). But some aren't. Will the neighbor lose sleep or value to his property because of this guy? He probably has. If he's been injured by this guys willing disregard of the rules we've set out, then shouldn't this guy be made to pay, in one way or another for his contravening of society?
My two cents...
S.