Bigotry and Property Values

Ron,

  I certainly agree with you that if there is a pre-existing business or other use that generates noise, people should not have the right to move into the area and then demand that the noise be eliminated. I also maintain that neighbors don't have a "right" to keep certain people or businesses out of their neighborhood just because they lower property values or offend their sensibilities (as opposed to being an unpleasant and pervasive assault on the senses). By this, I wasn't referring to deed or lease restrictions, but political pressure exerted by NIMBY neighbors trying to exert control over what is allowed to happen in their neighborhood.

Yours in liberty,
        <<< Starchild >>>

Dear Starchild;

The question unforunately bumps up against the State or the City and its zoning ordinances as to residential vs business vs mixed use.

Ordinances with CCR's on residential units and who can buy in or move in are plainly verboten.

Businesses in a residential neighborhood are problematical because of the generic nature of the word business. A car manufacturing plant next door would be a problem. A laundromat or dry cleaner or corner grocery is another story.

The scope and type of business would have to fit the residential neighborhood.

Counter to this are the examples of people who moved into SOMA neighborhoods and found there was noise from night clubs or the train depot or the ball park. When they moved in they made the choice and those businesses were already there. The businesses did not move in after the people moved in so they should quit their belly aching.

It is not an easy snap answer question because of the dynamics of what type of resdiential neighborhood and what type of business.

Ron Getty
SF Libertarian

Ron,

Ha ha ha... would never happen, but nice hypothetical. Really depends
how invasive the smell was. I certainly wouldn't hold them to the
standard that some Noe Valley residents wanted to apply to the Green
Cross, of not even being able to smell it walking by on the street (not
even getting into the relative offensiveness of smelling "skunk" of the
cannabis variety versus smelling the black and white striped rodent).
If it was as bad as the stench of pigs on some stretches of I-5, where
the smell permeates your car even going by at 65 mph with your windows
rolled up, then I would mind having them as a neighbor.

What about you? What standard do you think is reasonable? Would you
agree that neighbors don't have a "right" to keep certain people or
businesses out of their neighborhood just because they lower property
values or offend their sensibilities (as opposed to being an unpleasant
and pervasive assault on the senses)?

Yours in liberty,
<<< Starchild >>>

> Dear Starchild;
>
> Okay so no Hells Angel motorcycle club. How about something really
> quiet like a Pepe Le Pew Animal Shelter for Homeless Skunks?
>
> Ron Getty
> SF Libertarian
>
> Starchild wrote:
>
> Ron,
>
> I don't see how the right of free association enters into who moves in
> next door to you, unless they won't leave you alone, which of course
> would be a separate issue that could come up no matter who your
> neighbors are.
>
> My problem with having a motorcycle club next door would be the sound
> of all the motorcycles, which are easily audible indoors, especially
> the loud Harley types. That is in no way comparable to someone of
> different ethnicity, or a massage parlor, moving in. If the motorcycles
> weren't loud, I wouldn't mind having the Hells Angels next door. I
> think bikers tend to be a fairly libertarian group.
>
> Anyway, the point here is that neighbors don't have a "right" to keep
> certain people or businesses out of their neighborhood just because
> they lower property values or offend their sensibilities.
>
> I do think your point about the homeless needing more than just food
> is entirely valid, and I was never suggesting otherwise.
>
> Yours in liberty,
> <<< Starchild >>>
>
> > Dear Starchild;
> >
> > Clarification I did not mention the massage parlor moving in next
> > door. Marcy used that as an example and as always the right of free
> > association comes into mind. In the same vein as the black family
> > moving in next door would you want a Hells Angel motorcycle club to
> > move in next door to where you live?
> >
> > On fewer restrictions on feeding the homelss this is not a bad idea
> > but as I mentioned just feeding without the additional services only
> > helps half the problem.
> >
> > The soup and the prayer program was a saying developed during the
> > Depression when soup kitchens were ubiquitos. People got fed but
> still
> > the thing missing was jobs and medical and dental care.
> >
> > Ron Getty
> > SF Libertarian
> >
> > Starchild wrote:
> >
> > Ron,
> >
> > I agree that merely providing food to the homeless in and of itself
> > does not help very much. (Of course I'm not sure having a prayer
> > program helps much either, other than to draw people into religion
> at a
> > time when they are down and out and more vulnerable to such appeals.)
> > The question here is not what method is effective at getting the
> > homeless on their feet however, but whether government can control
> who
> > gets to help them and how.
> >
> > If there were fewer restrictions on helping the homeless, it would
> > tend to encourage more individuals and groups to get involved,
> > presumably with a variety of different approaches, some of which
> would
> > work better than what's being done now. That would be the concrete
> > policy goal of an initiative on feeding the homeless.
> >
> > To briefly address another topic you and Marcy touched on below, I'm
> > not sure what helpful point is made by saying things like, "why
> would a
> > homeowner want a massage parlor next door when it would lower their
> > property value. Property owners fight for their rights!" Replace the
> > words "massage parlor" with "black family" and I trust you'll be able
> > to see the problem with framing the issue in such terms.
> >
> > Yours in liberty,
> > <<< Starchild >>>
> >
> > > Dear Marcy and Et Alia;
> > >
> > > On feeding the homeless while worthy I believe this saying should
> be
> > > paramount in any feed the homeless initiative:
> > >
> > > “Give a man a fish; you have fed him for today. Teach a man to
> > fish;
> > > and you have fed him for a lifetime. Teach a man to sell the fish
> he
> > > catches and he eats steak.”
> > >
> > > I believe there are various programs already in place to have food
> > > centers and food kitchens collect surplus prepared food from
> > > restaurants and grocery stores in SF to hand out as needed. There
> are
> > > also local community help programs to provide food to nee dy
> > families.
> > >
> > > Just providing food to a homeless person without the old Salvation
> > > Army ethos of a soup and a prayer program is self-defeating unless
> > you
> > > have built in additional social services to help those who want to
> > get
> > > help back on their feet.
> > >
> > > Private charity programs in the Depression era required people who
> > > wanted help to be able to work in return for the help. They were
> very
> > > adamant about no work no food.
> > >
> > > The homeless problem is like the article in the Bay Guardian this
> > week
> > > about the person who went to a Newsom Project Homeless shelter and
> > > asked for some pants to replac e the torn pants he was wearing. All
> > he
> > > kept getting was how we help you get health treatment sleeping
> place
> > > job training etc but they couldn't get his torn pants replaced.
> > >
> > > see the article here:
> > >
> > > http://www.sfbg.com/40/10/news_home.html
> > >
> > > Gavin Newsom's Care not Cash program is built around this
> concept of
> > a
> > > multi-help center but doesn't address care areas that are outside
> the
> > > box. Then there are the separate problems with the homelss persons
> > who
> > > are drug addicts, mentally incompetent or alcoholics or all of the
> > > above.
> > >
> > > An initiative about feeding the homeless or making it easier to do
> > > so seems to be duplicating what is already being done. Unless there
> > is
> > > some other angle not previously thought about which would represent
> > > a reasonably broad issue for a feed the homeless initiative.
> > >
> > > After having thought about it some more I
> believe giving ownership to
> > > the people living in housing projects in high crime areas is a good
> > > area for an initiative.
> > >
> > > They can own the project property and have a sense of controlling
> > what
> > > happe ns around them is a viable initiative project. Something
> > > like Carter's Habit for Humanity with sweat equity thrown in for
> good
> > > measure.
> > >
> > > I'm certain the current Wash DC powers that be would be delighted
> to
> > > dump off the housing projects and be rid of one more headache.
> > >
> > > Then maybe like the stone thrown into a still pond the ripples
> would
> > > spread out and help to create a sense of family and community from
> > the
> > > ownership rights of property.
> > >
> > > With this po ssible employers opening businesses and providing jobs
> > > and creating a feeling of a community where you have a property
> stake
> > > in what happens in your own community because of the ownership
> rights
> > > you now have.
> > >
> > > Like Marcy said why would a homeowner want a massage parlor next
> door
> > > when it would lower their property value. Property owners fight for
> > > their rights!!!
> > >
> > > This also could ultimately have an impact on the gang and drug
> > > problems currently associated with these project areas.
> > >
> > > Then work on developing a private educational program so the local
> > > parents would have a real direct say so in what happens and how
> their
> > > children are taught. Then there wouldn't have to be forced busing
> and
> > > so and so on.
> > >
> > > "The Projects Families Property Ownership Act"
> > >
> > >
> > > The basis would be an initiative to work with the City - State -
> > > Federal authorities to help the projects families buy and fix up a
> nd
> > > own the properties themselves. Take the projects away from
> > > government and public ownership supported by taxes and make it
> > > personal ownership like condominiums or townhouses.
> > >
> > > Ron Getty
> > > SF Libertarian
> > >
> > > Marcy Berry wrote:
> > >
> > >
> > > I would like to add my opinions on the general objectives implicit
> in
> > > the pr oposed Civil Liberties Initiative to those already offered
> by
> > > Starchild and by Ron, and also vote for one initiative idea:
> > >
> > > 1. I am having trouble defining for myself what "left leaning"
> > really
> > > means as it applies to our San Francisco voters. In an effort to
> > gain
> > > some understanding, I have just spent a couple of hours googling
> the
> > > following: "San Francisco left"; "Left leaning politics",San
> > > Francisco; "Left leaning voters",San Francisco; Issues,"left
> > > leaning",San Francisco. After looking over tons of articles, I
> came
> > > away with the following issues (listed in no particular order of
> > > importance): poverty, low income, homelessness, capital
> punishment,
> > > the draft, tenants rights, gay rights, ethnic discrimination, the
> > > bottom-liners in the dot-com boom, urban flight, voting rights,
> > > criminalization of AIDS, criminalization of the homeless, Green
> Party
> > > issues. My point here is that we need to understand what really
> > > could appeal to *significant* portions of the left.
> > >
> > > 2. As Ron, I also would prefer an initiative that would have a
> > > direct impact on a local situation that needs fixing. That would
> > > preclude resolutions that merely send messages but have no direct
> > > effect on the status quo. I believe we need to be especially
> careful
> > > not to send a mixed message when we decry our political leaders for
> > > spending taxpayer money on silly stuff while spending a lot a
> > > resources ourselves on a toothless initiative. For example, I
> would
> > > love to see employers freely hire day laborers; however, nothing we
> > > propose at the local level can change the state and federal laws
> > > regulating employment.
> > >
> > > 3. When I think of a civil liberty issue, I think of a
> governmental
> > > entity preventing me from doing something which I am entitled to do
> > > under the Constitution or existing laws. I do not think of my fo
> > llow
> > > citizens protecting themselves from a behavior which might infringe
> > on
> > > their well being. Does the *significant majority* of my
> left-leaning
> > > neighbors (I live next to San Francisco State University, not a
> > > particularly conservative neighborhood) want so see people sleeping
> > in
> > > their cars, or using loudspeakers indiscriminately, or driving
> > without
> > > a license, or walking around nude? As for the homeowners in our
> > > midst, I would doubt if they would be happy with a massage parlor
> > > opening next to their home, which I would wager they would perceive
> > as
> > > depressing the value of their property.
> > >
> > > 4. I would be all for reopening bath houses as a civil liberties
> > > issue, so long as we repeal tax payer funded health care.
> > >
> > > 5. Finally, if I were to choose from the list Starchild provided,
> I
> > > would vote for:
> > >
> > > --Modifying local health code laws if they are prevent ing private
> > > parties from feeding the homeless. Private parties might
> > include Food
> > > Not Bombs or restaurants that find themselves with surplus food. I
> > > would definitely add a responsibility clause to such an initiative;
> > > since I do not want irresponsible or malicious people poisoning the
> > > unwary with tainted food.
> > >
> > > Marcy
> >
>
> >
> > YAHOO! GROUPS LINKS
> >
> > + Visit your group "lpsf-activists" on the web.
> >
> > + To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to:
> > lpsf-activists-unsubscribe@yahoogroups.com
> >
> > + Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to the Yahoo! Terms of
> Service.
> >
>
> >
>

>
> YAHOO! GROUPS LINKS
>
> + Visit your group "lpsf-activists" on the web.
>
> + To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to:
> lpsf-activists-unsubscribe@yahoogroups.com
>
> + Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to the Yahoo! Terms of Service.
>

>

SPONSORED LINKS

<image.tiff>

<image.tiff>

YAHOO! GROUPS LINKS

+ Visit your group "lpsf-activists" on the web.

+ To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to:
lpsf-activists-unsubscribe@yahoogroups.com

+ Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to the Yahoo! Terms of Service.

<image.tiff>