Wayne–
Your post was a nice rambling sort of review of many things but I’m not sure I see a thread through it?

Yes, I am right, I agree with you, there are abuses to the extent of pp rights. That was my point of course. The teabaggers, well, slumlords in my town are yelling the loudest and have been. They want the pp rights to rent to anyone or do ANYthing they want at the expense of the security of their neighborhoods. NOW many rich white folks, (that’s my hood) are screaming about the parolees in the hood because of the influx and easy rental policies. It’s ironic.

Sex offenders once convicted have lost their civil rights so there is no concomitant civil rights issue at all. Race restrictive cov’s were struck down in the 50’s– no issue there. This new problem is 100% ok Constitutionally that’s not the issue. The issue is the silly extreme and the terminal end of yet another goofy libertarian- Republican idea.

This whole issue is the terminal end of stupid libertarian extremes—-PP

On the west side of Los Angeles and in the Malibu area there are many drug rehab houses in very upscale areas. Not too much resistance because it doesn’t damage neighborhood property values.

In other areas it becomes more problematic because it hurts property values and puts substance abusers and ex-cons in half way houses next door to families. I think the law should be reformed to mandate that cities plan for half way houses but in industrial and commercial or multifamily zones. Convalescent homes and homes for retarded children are more compatible with R-1 zones.

In Houston, which has no zoning, they solve this problem with covenants in each neighborhood (not racial) that assures that there are compatible land uses.

Ted, remember the naive, idealistic white kid who thought he would move into a Black neighborhood and he went out on a walk and got pummeled to nearly death? I can’t remember where that was. The Black neighborhood didn’t perceive him to be a tolerant and unprejudiced liberal person; they saw him as a White blockbuster who bring gentrification and eventually higher rents that would drive them out of the neighborhood. That is what graffiti is: a symbolic marker to stay out. So there is neighborhood resistance against markets on another level as well.

As you know, there is a law against child molesters living within a certain distance of schools.

Property rights are a civil right as well. Blacks were denied homeownership by racial covenants and other policies and that denied them economic mobility because homes are used as bank accounts to borrow against.

What libertarians don’t like is government taking some property rights without just compensation and leaving the landowners with the damages and nuisance.

Private property is a buffer against the intrusions of the state: a man’s home is his castle. That is a liberal value: privacy.

You’re right, many R-1 neighborhoods have been informally changed to multifamily areas by homeowners moving out and renting out their SF homes to those who might pack 2 or 3 families in the same dwelling. This occurs even in upscale areas such as San Marino in Southern California where many mansions are turned into sort of dormitory housing for foreign students who then go to local schools and junior colleges on the cheap.

So if you mean that their can be abuses or an excess of property rights I might agree with you.

private property rights

True in a way– but it is ONLY so called pp rights that allowed homeowners in R1 zones to rent to corperations that set up the facilities for the felons to live next door. Otherwise, cities could pass zoning laws restricting same. Now they can’t because of state law that defines families for the purposes of zones.

If a restriction in property rights disallowing such rentals by homeowners in R1 areas was law the problem would be solved— but your kind has been touting the “private property” rights nonsense so long it’s an uphill battle!

How do you distinquish your pp rights position with a cities ability to restrict who you rent to?

Ted, your friend.

Tesla-x

I’m not a lawyer but I don’t believe the diverting of bought and paid for water to protect a fish that is abundant elsewhere in the U.S. and the world is grounds for inverse condemnation because the government did not physically damage farm properties. However, it would fall into the category of a possible regulatory taking. The problem with regulatory takings is that they are typically non-compensatory under the law. But the instance you raise is of water that was already paid under contracts with the Federal government. But once again, probably contract law is paramount over regulatory taking law.

What is interesting in the Pasadena case is that now property owners can balance the “you can’t fight city hall” sort of law by using their insurance companies to sue cities and recover the insurance company’s costs. This case is a game changer I believe.

State Law allows halfway houses– felons, drug rehabs, parolees, dual diagnosis loons etc to move into ANY R1 zoned area! There is a HUGE movement placing these in suburbs EVERYwhere……alot of nice beach towns seem to be suffering—- guess what? Private property rights! Owners can rent to private health corps that make a mint off of the parolees etc—- private property hysteria is a doomy slippery slope little buddies!

Because they negligently chose to protect a common baitfish over human water needs, many mandated in the california constitution, the drought has become an economic disaster.

This actually goes well beyond negligence, as the tone of many political and NGO supporters of the smelt, and many in government, borders on malevolence driven ECO-fanaticism.

I can’t wait till the next election.