Property taxes (WAS: On Nh living and commutes..)

[Michael Costolo]

--- Derek Martin <invalid at pizzashack.org> wrote:
> Or something.  Democracy is a myth.  I think it's only really
> democracy if most everyone participates, and makes informed decisions.
> And votes for what they truly believe in...  

That is the point of voting, n'est-ce pas?
 
> > Of course that same democracy could be used to amend or even
> > eliminate the historical district if it was the will of the people.
> 
> Apathy in action: the reverse will never happen because no one will
> vote it down unless they are unfavorably affected by it.  

As evidenced by what, exactly?  Laws change all the time.

> The people
> affected are invariably a small minority, and stand no chance.
> Historical district laws are well-intentioned, I'm sure...  But they're
> also inherently unfair.  

Unfair as defined by what?  If someone purchases a historic piece of property in a
town and wants to raze it to build a Wal-Mart, are not the citizens of that town
entitled to their say?  The decision affects them on many levels.  This is precisely
the same thing has having as zoning laws.  You can't put a hazardous waste storage
facility next to my house for no other that a collective "we" doesn't want you to. 
Unfair?  Hardly.
 
> These laws allow some empassioned citizens to essentially dictate what
> some OTHER group of citizens can and can't do with their own property.

To some extent, yes.  Is this always bad?  No.  Can/has it been abused?  Certainly.

> Preserving historical monuments always sounds like a good idea, so
> many citizens will vote in favor of such laws without considering the
> actual owners of the property in question, or often (like in any other
> case) vote without even understanding what the issue is.  Once the
> unfortunate travesty has passed, it's virtually impossible for the
> land owner(s) who have been wronged to do anything about it.

I suppose that is one way of looking at it.  But when it comes to people who
purchase (not inherit) historic property, the onus is on the purchaser to understand
what he is getting into.  Caveat emptor.
 
> If people want historical districts, then they should be required to
> BUY the land being turned into a historical district.  No one should
> be able to decide what another person does with their property, until
> and unless their actions are a genuine nuisance to the community at
> large.

Unfortunately, "genuine nuisance" is a subjective term.  Which makes it vague and
difficult to determine if it exists.

Belive me I'm all for private property rights.  But communities can and should have
a say in zoning, which is essentially the issue at hand.

-Mike-

=====
"The power of accurate observation is commonly called cynicism by those who have not got it"
-George Bernard Shaw


	
		
__________________________________
Do you Yahoo!?
Yahoo! Photos: High-quality 4x6 digital prints for 25¢
http://photos.yahoo.com/ph/print_splash