GBurch1@aol.com wrote:
>
> In a message dated 11/12/00 11:33:54 AM Central Standard Time,
> sentience@pobox.com quoted somebody:
>
> > > Houston, TX, does not have zoning laws, so there's no implied property
> > > rights.
>
> The first part of this is true (a fact I'm quite proud of as a Houstonian),
> but I don't think the second part is true under any interpretation. Real
> property in the city exists within a web of interlocking covenants that "run
> with the land" and property owners must carry on their activities within the
> limits of common and statutory law.
Right. THis is not a chicken/egg thing. Property rights existed long
before zoning laws were even a gleam in a bureaucrats eye. Zoning laws
confiscate property rights without constitutionally mandated
compensation. If I own propery A, with a naturally infinite set of
possible uses {a...a^n}, and a government imposes zoning laws on my
property, it confiscates all possible uses but set {a...a^x) which are
dictated by that use zone.
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b30 : Mon May 28 2001 - 09:50:30 MDT