[BC] RFR Rule Question

[towers at mre.com]

Jeff,

There is a thing called "Quiet Enjoyment".  It's a common term used in
leases.  But it's not commonly applied to property ownership.

In the case here, if I was a property owner prior to the purchase of an
adjoining parcel by someone who decides to do something which I don't
agree, the late comer is possibly disturbing my Quiet Enjoyment. Eg. I'm a
peaceful guy and a drag strip is built on the adjoining parcel.

Zoning is designed to avoid incomptabile land uses from occuring.  And
frankly, I have attended zoning hearings in opposition to certain projects
which would have disrupted the character of the location in which it was
planned. There were better more suitable locations. (traffic congestion,
etc.)

Taking your tact and turning it around, if I was the long time resident
and you created a "nuisnace" after moving in and you told ME to GFO and
move, you'd be served with a summons to appear and show cause on how you
are not disrupting quiet enjoyment.

MM

> This is one of the few places remaining in the law or in practice
> where if you buy something, it's actually yours, or at least mostly.
>
> I live in a place where we didn't even have zoning until about five
> years ago, and I still believe that if you buy a piece of land, you
> should be able to do whatever you want with it.  If you buy it, and
> somebody else can still tell you what to do with it, then whose is it
> really?  The concept of private property of any kind has been under
> steady attack for as long as I can remember.
>
> I understand NIMBYism to a degree, but I'd also be the first to invite
> folks to GTFO if they didn't like living next door to me and any legal
> use to which I put my own real property.   In fact, I've done so, and
> they did, after they finally understood they had no other viable
> recourse.