This time it’s an old house built of yellow brick. Inexplicably, and perhaps mistakenly according to the news account, it got painted black. The historical board cried foul, the owner is trying to remove the black paint without damaging the brick, and locals are up in arms.
The house is in a business district and has apparently been used for retail for a long time. Does that matter?
I agree with the neighbors: the color of that house is sickening.
I also agree with the homeowner: if there is no homeowners’ association, and hence there are no rules for the neighbors to enforce, he should be able to paint his house whatever color he likes.
Like I said, if you want to paint your house the color of your choice, be careful where you buy your house. Conversely, if you want to make sure all the houses in your neighborhood look essentially the same, again, make sure you know what the rules are before you buy. It’s really not that complicated.
Adverse possession isn’t really about “squatting” on, or stealing, someone else’s land, even though it sounds like that’s essentially what happened in a case in Australia that was recently discussed at Lowering the Bar. Adverse possession is really about, in my opinion, putting to rest uncertainty about ownership of land. I have written about adverse possession from both angles: it’s not really about stealing someone else’s land; it really is about resolving uncertainty as to ownership of land.
It’s a subject that maybe only real estate lawyers care about. Other people don’t care about it until they discover that their neighbor is encroaching on their land. Then, they care about it.
There’s an interesting comment at the end of the discussion that I linked in a post last week. As I suspected, there was apparently some bureaucratic skullduggery in applying historic property rules to the house that was the subject of the discussion, with the outcome that the owner’s neighbors (or more accurately, a small subset of his neighbors) got to tell him what color he could not paint his house.
All the more reason to vote with your feet and stay away from properties that are subject to rules enforced by people who like to tell others what to do.
A DISCUSSION THAT ILLUSTRATES PERFECTLY THE POINT I HAVE MADE ABOUT NOT BUYING A PROPERTY THAT’S SUBJECT TO RULES YOU MAY NOT LIKE
The Rosemont Mine to be located south of Tucson is a matter of some controversy. I recognize the environmental harms that could result from it. I think that the benefits will outweigh the potential harms, however.
The Tucson area is not prosperous. I think the Rosemont Mine will undoubtedly improve the economic well-being of Tucson residents. That’s a good reason for the project to proceed, even if some of the public officials who oppose the project don’t seem to recognize it.
And from the perspective of a real estate lawyer with a background in land use law, the proposed project is of tremendous interest, whether or not I’m personally in favor of it.
A living will is a written statement that controls health care decisions that can be made on your behalf. That’s pretty important.
To learn more about what a living will is (and what it is not), how a living will works, and what alternatives exist for executing a living will, you will want to read my February newsletter. It’s available now in the publications section of deconcinimcdonald.com.
The Instapundit has an interesting column in USA Today analyzing recent comments by Justice Thomas on the constitutional underpinnings of Supreme Court case law in defamation cases. Justice Thomas suggested that the rule established by the Supreme Court, that a defamation claim by a public official or public figure must include proof that the defamer acted with knowing or reckless disregard of the truth (the so-called “actual malice” standard), may not be required by the First and Fourteenth Amendments.
To lawyers like me who are interested in First Amendment law, it’s an intriguing question.
THERE’S NOT MUCH THAT INTERESTS ME OUT THERE TO BLOG ABOUT TODAY, SO CHECK OUT THIS GREAT PHOTO FROM THE EARLY 70s
Dig the fringed suede jacket.
MORE BRILLIANT IDEAS FROM THE GENIUSES IN DC - THEY WANT TO DICTATE THE TERMS OF CORPORATE SHARE REPURCHASES
I wasn’t aware that some federal lawmakers have decided companies should be prohibited from buying back shares until the companies compensate all of their employees at the level that lawmakers deem appropriate. What a great idea! Now, why don’t those geniuses also just dictate what products companies can produce and set prices for which they can sell those products? At least one of them seems to think that these would in fact be appropriate exercises of our central government’s authority.
As an aside, the linked item suggests that a Republican senator has “criticized buybacks.” Here’s what that senator actually said:
At present, Wall Street rewards companies for engaging in stock buybacks, temporarily increasing their stock prices at the expense of productive investment. While companies should be free to buy their own stock, there should be no tax advantage for stock buybacks over other forms of capital allocation, as the deferral of capital-gains taxes currently allows.
One can agree with that statement without supporting the idea that the federal government should dictate when a company can repurchase its shares.
The contents of this blog, this web site, and any writings by me that are linked here, are all my personal commentary. None of it is intended to be legal advice for your situation.