tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-11906042.post4315409867986998699..comments2024-03-30T00:09:27.602+13:00Comments on Not PC: It’s time to put a stake through the heart of the RMA–and time a politician finally said that [updated]Peter Cresswellhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/10699845031503699181noreply@blogger.comBlogger16125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-11906042.post-9643915149417684212014-04-21T11:26:04.080+12:002014-04-21T11:26:04.080+12:00"How for instance might I ensure my view or a..."How for instance might I ensure my view or a neighbour's tree was retained? Voluntarily, as I explained here.."<br /><br />That is easy.<br /><br />You buy the property that would otherwise block 'your' view.<br /><br />You should in the future spend more time defining how a view is 'yours' before coming up ridiculous straw man arguments.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-11906042.post-13053569026625195902014-03-05T19:28:11.172+13:002014-03-05T19:28:11.172+13:00"First, me.
Second, my right to bear arms, an..."First, me.<br />Second, my right to bear arms, and to defend my property as I see fit.<br />Third, the private property registration companies I've paid to recognise my claim on the property.<br />Fourth, the private security companies I've contracted with to also protect my property.<br />Fifth, the private insurance companies I've contracted with to insure my property."<br /><br />So whoever has the biggest arsenal gets to say it's theirs. Civilised. Thanks for the clarification Angry Tory. You sound like a cunt. Chaznoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-11906042.post-41951738294240954062014-03-05T16:31:59.540+13:002014-03-05T16:31:59.540+13:00Mark
You are assuming a level playing field with ...Mark<br /><br />You are assuming a level playing field with regard to legal representation. Under common law if an asshole with deep pockets moves in next door to you it will be an uphill battle to win any legal dispute, regardless of how clear cut it looks on paper.Bennoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-11906042.post-48956617298800606622014-03-05T12:26:49.850+13:002014-03-05T12:26:49.850+13:00Who says it's yours?
First, me.
Second, my ri...<i>Who says it's yours?</i><br /><br />First, me.<br />Second, my right to bear arms, and to defend my property as I see fit.<br />Third, the private property registration companies I've paid to recognise my claim on the property.<br />Fourth, the private security companies I've contracted with to also protect my property.<br />Fifth, the private insurance companies I've contracted with to insure my property.<br /><br />No mention of the state, of local or central government, and absolutely no reservation of "initiation of force" to governments. <b>It's mine because I posses it - and so I can do what I like with it</b>Angry Torynoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-11906042.post-13474767273923251672014-03-05T07:26:12.433+13:002014-03-05T07:26:12.433+13:00"It's my property, you can do what you li..."It's my property, you can do what you like with it."<br /><br />Who says it's yours?Chaznoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-11906042.post-53421019133469488702014-03-05T06:21:17.105+13:002014-03-05T06:21:17.105+13:00Mark
You possess a right to mortgage another'...Mark<br /><br />You possess a right to mortgage another's property to your needs?<br /><br />AmitAnonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-11906042.post-26306862236472891532014-03-05T04:23:36.471+13:002014-03-05T04:23:36.471+13:00@ Amit
Does a right to property mean anything if y...@ Amit<br />Does a right to property mean anything if you build a house, but then someone can take away your ability to access the house or enjoy it in any meaningful way without recourse?<br /><br />@Ben<br />Under common law there would be clear precedents that as you were there first, the gelatine factory is infringing on your property rights. They would be foolish to try, but if they did I doubt it would be a hard case to win. If they were there first however it would be another matter, as you would be 'coming to the nuisance'.<br /><br />MarkThttps://www.blogger.com/profile/06199883270652041621noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-11906042.post-37285359973859594762014-03-04T18:00:14.396+13:002014-03-04T18:00:14.396+13:00PC
You write about, "...rights to light, to...PC <br /><br />You write about, "...rights to light, to air, to support, and to road access"<br /><br />These are rights? Are you sure? <br /><br />Amit Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-11906042.post-26404999798339262582014-03-04T11:27:23.242+13:002014-03-04T11:27:23.242+13:00someone who sets up a gelatine factory next door t...<i> someone who sets up a gelatine factory next door to your residential house</i><br /><br />First - no-one is going to set up a gelatine (or gelignite) factory next to my residence. Land values preclude it (unless socialist "housing affordability" policies greatly reduce those values) <br /><br />Second - say I'm the land owner. If I've owned the land for a while, yeah of course I can start a factory there or anything else I want. <b> It's my property, I can do what I like with it.</b><br /><br />Third - the factory moves in - so that implies the owner sold and the factory-owners bought the land. Fine.<br />If you really wanted to stop the factory, you could have bought the land yourself when the owner sold. Until then, <br /> <b> It's their property, they can do what they like with it.</b><br /><br />Finally - you can always buy the land yourself - and which point, <b> It's my property, you can do what you like with it.</b>Angry Torynoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-11906042.post-45889236897860326462014-03-03T19:45:10.832+13:002014-03-03T19:45:10.832+13:00The problem with common law is if a large corporat...The problem with common law is if a large corporation moves in next door and starts making gelatine, you will bankrupt yourself trying to stop it. The RMA is supposed to rectify this, but goes too far.Bennoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-11906042.post-14923422891566286012014-03-03T15:56:00.891+13:002014-03-03T15:56:00.891+13:00"It's my property, I can do what I like w..."It's my property, I can do what I like with it."<br /><br />That's a reasonable beginning Angry Tory, but it's certainly not the end, because reality throws up complications you're ignoring. An example would be someone who sets up a gelatine factory next door to your residential house. In that example how can you do what you like with your property, when your whole outdoors and probably indoors is consumed by the smell of rotting animal carcasses? Clearly we need something to address instances like this, but as Peter explains common law does a fine job and there's no need for the complication and unfairness of the RMA.MarkThttps://www.blogger.com/profile/06199883270652041621noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-11906042.post-21260642701009472832014-03-03T14:41:21.752+13:002014-03-03T14:41:21.752+13:00@Anonymous: That's a legal fiction, simply an ...@Anonymous: That's a legal fiction, simply an anomaly of the way property rights came under the wing of British law. Even if the concept were an issue, which it's not, it's easy enough by codification of relevant common law principles not to make it so.Peter Cresswellhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/10699845031503699181noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-11906042.post-57005592268865337562014-03-03T14:38:47.868+13:002014-03-03T14:38:47.868+13:00@Angry Tory said, "Oh where to start..."...@Angry Tory said, "Oh where to start..."<br /><br />Well, you could start by trying to understand the concepts of freedom and property rights. Let's start with this question: If it's my property, and I can do what I like with it, then what follows from that in respect of my neighbours' similar and equal rights?<br /><br />If I might quote myself again. from my post <a href="http://pc.blogspot.co.nz/2006/05/q-do-you-have-inviolable-right-to-do.html" rel="nofollow">'Do you have an inviolable right to do whatever you want on your property?'</a>:<br /><br /><i>Let me tell you about something called 'freedom.' Freedom in this context means to be free from physical coercion; in other words, having political freedom means that you're free to do whatever you're able and whatever you damn well please as long as you don't initiate force against anyone else. My freedom ends, in other words, where your nose begins. In this respect you might call your neighbour's nose your 'side-constraint,' just as his nose is yours -- which meams some of us do get more freedom than others.<br /><br />Now, under common law, which is what I would propose to repair to once the RMA is abolished, you have the secure right to peaceful enjoyment of your property. And as both you and your neighbour would enjoy that same right, his right of peaceful enjoyment is your side-constraint. Your freedom ends where your neighbour's peaceful enjoyment begins. The 'side contraints' for land use under common law require you to take account of, among other things, your neighbour's rights to light, to air, to support, and to road access and the like. These are significant side constraints, but they are both objective and reciprocal -- your neighbour is equally constrained to recognise your similar rights.<br /><br />So how are neighbourly issues resolved under common law? How for instance might I ensure my view or a neighbour's tree was retained? Voluntarily, as I explained here..</i><br /><br />Now, naturally, I don't expect you, AngryTory, to understand a word of that. I don't expect you to understand a word of that, because you are a troll.Peter Cresswellhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/10699845031503699181noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-11906042.post-88750069357230615152014-03-03T14:08:35.449+13:002014-03-03T14:08:35.449+13:00Yarhlay-effin-loooyah! PC's been heard!Yarhlay-effin-loooyah! PC's been heard!<br /><br /><br />Sam Phttps://www.blogger.com/profile/09035978404256500568noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-11906042.post-27699151514423322832014-03-03T12:01:41.718+13:002014-03-03T12:01:41.718+13:00It is my understanding that the problem is the tit...It is my understanding that the problem is the title we "enjoy". We generally have fee simple which is a perpetual lease so technically its not your land. The other title is alloidial which, I gather, really does see ownership rights apply. The latter was used in early NZ but was replaced. I suspect a few still exist.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-11906042.post-38084673997930088162014-03-03T12:00:53.271+13:002014-03-03T12:00:53.271+13:00Oh where to start:
There needed to be environmen...Oh where to start:<br /><br /><i> There needed to be environmental protections in the law,</i><br /><br />No. Just no. There needs to be a very simple law: <b>It's my property, I can do what I like with it</b>. Beginning. End. <br /><br /><br /><i>urgenttly drawing up transitional measures</i><br /><br />No. No. NO. How about a law that says: <b>It's my property, I can do what I like with it</b>. What other "transitional measures" are required? None. <br /><br /><i> First, enact a codification of basic common law principles such as the Coming to the Nuisance Doctrine and rights to light and air and the like. </i><br /><br />No. NO. <b>NO. </b>. <b>It's my property, I can do what I like with it</b>.<br /><br /><i>Next, and this will take a little more time, insist that councils set up a ‘Small Consents Tribunals’ for</i><br /><br />Oh wait a minute. more regulation, more special courts, I must be reading a labour party blog. Or the greens. Yeah. greens. What needs to be done with councils is simple: replace them with city corporations that operate on a purely fee-for-service basis. <br /><br /><i>Second, register on all land titles (as voluntary restrictive covenants) the basic “no bullshit” provisions of District Plans (stuff like height-to-boundary rules, density requirements and the like).<br /><br />Over time we should slowly see emerging a network of reciprocal covenants </i><br /><br />The only plan is: <b>It's my property, I can do what I like with it</b>. That's that definition of private property! Angry Torynoreply@blogger.com