I’d also like to put forth that I would be far, FAR more concerned about a pile of rubble, cars up on blocks on the front “lawn,” the house literally falling down—none of which are the case based off the picture above—than a few weeds. Hell, those weeds aren’t even that bad. If someone simply mowed over them they would look like little more than patchy grass.

Frankly, if I was going to buy an adjacent property, the looks of what I see in the picture, barring anything worse outside the scope of the picture, wouldn’t deter me at all. Of course I’m not offended by what others do with their own private property…but that’s just me.

I can take out advertisements in the newspaper saying “Don’t buy Bob’s house! His neighbor is annoying!” That will certainly lower Bob’s house’s market value. Too bad for Bob. It doesn’t give Bob moral authority to stop my advertising campaign or to get the state to do it for him.

All of ones actions will directly and/or indirectly have an impact on other people. No matter what it is, one could say that my actions have an affect on others. If I don’t control weeds in my yard, this is indirectly affecting your property value (directly affecting your value would be to do something directly to your property).

If the weeds are contained to my property, but affect the sale of your property because other people looking to buy don’t like the aesthetics of the surrounding properties, then at what point have I violated your rights? Is there even a ‘right’ involved? Obviously, this is a slippery slope discussion because one could start arguing that the car you drive (an 85 rust bucket honda) devalues my property. What is the test to determine if my actions are a violation of your rights? I think direct actions are easier to determine, but indirect effects is where the debate lies…

Now, first-resort going straight to the government solution DOES sound like a leftist, statist, conflict-averse wimp-out. As opposed to going over and talking to the guy. Maybe offering to help if he’s in straitened circumstances. (Of course, we don’t know how many of these situations have already (fruitlessly) progressed through that stage.)

However, that doesn’t mean the state should butt out altogether. I kinda see it as that’s what the state’s FOR — to resolve otherwise insoluble problems between citizens. One could wish for a more-Solomonic outcome, but what do you expect from bureaucrats?

M

Funny.

There is a better case for government action when its not just some weeds, but something toxic, or very loud, or horrible smelling, that has a stronger and more direct effect on other properties.