Father fights in court to save kids' treehouse

[Colpy]

Personally, I think Dad should have a chat with his neighbour.....perhaps he could reflect on how mowing his lawn contributes to global warming, so he is thinking about ceasing that activity......and BTW, don't you think a '62 Mercury hauled up against your fence and left to rust would make a lovely, and quite artistic statement about our "disposable society"...........and how whitewashed tires cut in half make lovely driveway borders.........you get the idea....

If he wants scenery, give him scenery.........just not quite the scenery he wants.

Property values?

What property value?

 

[Praxius]

That's exactly my point Paxius.

You don't own your house your land your yard your trees you occupy them at the whim of the neighbor who doesn't want his view obstructed...

Amongst the other things you said, I agree with, but a point I'd like to add to the above is that apparently none of us own our homes, property, trees and all that other stuff, and we pay property taxes on top of all that, but we don't own it......

So if I don't own my property, and my bitching neighbors don't own their property, then how do they get more rights to decide what I can and can not do on my little borrowed patch of land and vice versa?

If I have some redneck down the road or accross the street from me with several old cars in the front lawn, a few shopping carts in the ditch, the house is painted purple with black poka-dots, who the hell am I to be bitching and complaining? Who are they to be bitching about me?

So long as whatever you do stays in your property boundaries, nobody should have a say over anything.

Did people buy their homes specifically because of the view? Perhaps.... but if that was their only or major decision maker and then suddenly they lose that view..... TOUGH TITTIES!

 

[Praxius]

My point Praxius, was that my view effected the value of my house. Take away that view and the property value drops. Lots of things influence property values. Some things can be controlled. Some cannot.

I understand this, but as I claimed, the view shouldn't have anything to do with the value of a house and those people pricing the house shouldn't be affected on view either, as what someone likes as a view is subjective.

The structure of the house, the design, it's ease of function, location to stores, schools, it's energy expenses, amount of property the house is on, how much maintenece is required, should all be factors in the cost of a house..... not because some flairy fashionable dork with thick rimmed glasses, greesy emo hairdo and a binder likes the angle of a paticular oak tree when it lights up over the horizon everyday at 4:28pm and it makes him feel special inside.

 

[Zzarchov]

The fact remains Praxius, that if you cost me money by your actions, you have to pay me. If the city approved of that damn pirate ship, I might be able to make a case in court to sue the city. One of the last houses I owned on the mainland didn't have much of a view untill the contractor finished the park that gave us a beautiful view of the park and the Fraser river, and my property value went up buy over a hundred grand. I knew the park was coming when I bought the house.

This I have a problem with, the value of your house is built on speculation, speculation as to what the neighbours would do.

You bought the house knowing it was possible that your neighbours could do any number of things to harm your property value.

If you want to hold them responsible for not being allowed to use their own property if it decreases the speculative value of your property, then you are in essence asking them to give of themselves, to act in your best interests.

Which is fine, but that involves a price tag. If they keep your property value up or raise it, what are you giving them in exchange for harming their investment?

But disallowing the building of a treehouse you are interfering with their land being used for its intended purpose (raising a family). Pay up.


I prefer to see property value as speculative investment. If I buy stocks, and the CEO does something (lawful) that lowers their value, I can't sue. I took my risks.

The neighbour took risks buying a house who's value was based on things outside of his control. If he wants control over the actions of neighbouring land, he can buy those lands or work out an agreement (involving consideration on his part as well)

 

[#juan]

If we had two identical houses in any city in Canada or the U.S. Both houses have the same sized lot and the same services. One of the houses has a magnificent view of the ocean, and the other has no particular view to speak of. That ocean view could increase the value of that house by up to half a million dollars depending where it was.

 

[MHz]

I wonder if it would be a non-issue if it had been built in the back-yard?

 

[Zzarchov]

If we had two identical houses in any city in Canada or the U.S. Both houses have the same sized lot and the same services. One of the houses has a magnificent view of the ocean, and the other has no particular view to speak of. That ocean view could increase the value of that house by up to half a million dollars depending where it was.

Im not disputing that, Im disputing your claim to the view. You didn't buy the view, you didn't pay the people who own the land between you and the ocean to not use their property to keep your value high...

What right do you have to own something you didn't pay for, just because it adds to the speculative value of your property?

 

[karrie]

Who's to say that kids playing amongst the trees ruins the view anyway? I'd rather buy a house with that view, than one with just tree branches (because I'm sorry, but those trees are in the way of any potential view ANYhow).

 

[Praxius]

If we had two identical houses in any city in Canada or the U.S. Both houses have the same sized lot and the same services. One of the houses has a magnificent view of the ocean, and the other has no particular view to speak of. That ocean view could increase the value of that house by up to half a million dollars depending where it was.

Most know this.... the debate as I see it, is should it be this way. I say no.

I base where I am going to live on location compared to work and getting supplies/food, then I base it on price. If I like the look of the house, the property is of a good size, the location compared to the things I need and I like the price of the house, then that should be all that matters.

If I want some view of a lake or ocean or I wish to live in a paticular area of the country/provience, then I do so on my own personal preference to what I want and then determine the homes in that area. If I can drive or walk to a place that has a nice view, then I don't care if my property is surrounded by a forest.

Just because most can be suckered into paying more for a house not based on what it's actual value is, but based on someone setting a value to the "view" from that property, doesn't make it right.

That's almost the equivilant to a court finding someone guilty of a crime based on emotional appeal and no evidence.

They're setting a price tag on something you can't accuratly price.

Charge more for a view? Sure why not.... how about we charge for water and air while we're at it? Oh wait, we already do.

 

[#juan]

Not so Praxius

Location, and view are just two of the things that determine what the value of the house is. You can say that it is not real value or whatever, but if people are willing to pay for it, the market value goes up accordingly, and market value is recognized by any bank.