'Green' lightbulbs poison workers

[WinterBorn]

My policy on land use is consistent with any other type of human behavior. Do with what's yours whatever the hell you please as long as it doesn't have an adverse effect of your neighbor. That's why I support reasonable environmental legislation as well as reasonable zoning laws. Now if the government makes a law after someone has purchased land or after they have made improvements and it adversely affects its value, then the government owes that landowner just compensation.

Some adverse effects are long term in nature, and some effect the environment as a whole.

For example, the wetlands designations are to protect plants and animals that have a wide ranging effect on whole ecosystems. While the wetlands designations have been abused and overused, the original intent was justified.

 

[DamnYankee]

Some adverse effects are long term in nature, and some effect the environment as a whole.

For example, the wetlands designations are to protect plants and animals that have a wide ranging effect on whole ecosystems. While the wetlands designations have been abused and overused, the original intent was justified.

If its all that important to society, than society should bear the financial burden of taking that land away from production or development, not the individual who owns it. The Constitution is clear on this.

 

[Mott the Hoople]

If its all that important to society, than society should bear the financial burden of taking that land away from production or development, not the individual who owns it. The Constitution is clear on this.

I hear what you're saying and it does have merit but we do it all the time. Would you care if you neighbor turned his house into a strip bar? What if they bought the house next to you and started a lard rendering plant? We often restrict practices on private property for community interest and have done so for a long time.

 

[WinterBorn]

So the tax payers bear the burden? If it was designated a wetlands after they bought it or developed it, I can see an argument for compensation. But otherwise, nope.

 

[DamnYankee]

I hear what you're saying and it does have merit but we do it all the time. Would you care if you neighbor turned his house into a strip bar? What if they bought the house next to you and started a lard rendering plant? We often restrict practices on private property for community interest and have done so for a long time.

I refer you to post 38.

 

[DamnYankee]

So the tax payers bear the burden? If it was designated a wetlands after they bought it or developed it, I can see an argument for compensation. But otherwise, nope.

Again, the wise words of post 38: "...if the government makes a law after someone has purchased land or after they have made improvements and it adversely affects its value, then the government owes that landowner just compensation."

 

[WinterBorn]

Again, the wise words of post 38: "...if the government makes a law after someone has purchased land or after they have made improvements and it adversely affects its value, then the government owes that landowner just compensation."

We pay him for what he would have done with the land? Does this mean a landowner with newly designated wetlands would be compensated for what he planned to do? Or would we only compensate for actual development stopped?

 

[DamnYankee]

We pay him for what he would have done with the land? Does this mean a landowner with newly designated wetlands would be compensated for what he planned to do? Or would we only compensate for actual development stopped?

That should be decided case by case.

 

[Damocles]

I hear what you're saying and it does have merit but we do it all the time. Would you care if you neighbor turned his house into a strip bar? What if they bought the house next to you and started a lard rendering plant? We often restrict practices on private property for community interest and have done so for a long time.

That was his point. However, if they change the law to allow your neighbor to create a lard rendering plant he is saying that society owes you for your lost value in your home.

 

[Mott the Hoople]

That was his point. However, if they change the law to allow your neighbor to create a lard rendering plant he is saying that society owes you for your lost value in your home.

That wasn't exactly my point. Would the neighbor be owed just compensation for not being permited to build and operate a lard rendering plant in a residential area (e.g. assuming SM lives in a residential area)?

 

[Damocles]

That wasn't exactly my point. Would the neighbor be owed just compensation for not being permited to build and operate a lard rendering plant in a residential area (e.g. assuming SM lives in a residential area)?

No, unless they changed the laws to disallow it.

If you purchase the property next door expecting them to allow you to build a lard rendering plant then you are retarded, it isn't zoned for it.

 

[charver]

I know we're living through turbulent economic times but it has come as somewhat of a surprise to see that you're all so interested in manufacturing lard.

Did you all suddenly come to the conclusion that lard was going to save the economy at the same time or are you all just copying off the, as yet unnamed, go-getting lard entrepreneur?

 

[DamnYankee]

I know we're living through turbulent economic times but it has come as somewhat of a surprise to see that you're all so interested in manufacturing lard.

Did you all suddenly come to the conclusion that lard was going to save the economy at the same time or are you all just copying off the, as yet unnamed, go-getting lard entrepreneur?

He's just being a lard-ass.