🚀 go-pugleaf

In article <20329@fritz.filenet.com> asylvain@fritz.filenet.com (The Chipmunk) 
writes:
>Written in article <1aii0eINN4b0@darkstar.UCSC.EDU>
> by bafta@ucscb.UCSC.EDU (dragon-monster):

>: In article <BvB2sB.5nx@quake.sylmar.ca.us> brian@quake.sylmar.ca.us 
>: (Brian K. Yoder) writes:

>: [example of fisherman vs upstream logger]

>: [the downstream victim can sue the upstream perpetrator]

>:> Should someone have to prove a harmful consequence?
>:> Or is it just generall bad and therefore justifiably forbidden?

>: What should really happen is that the burden of proof should be on the
>: forest owner, to demonstrate that his actions will *not* be harmful.

>Well, I'm sorry, but this nation was founded on the principle of "innocent
>until proven guilty."  If you want to change that, fine, say so.  But it's
>a different thread, to be taken up in talk.politics.theory.

Innocence or guilt have nothing to do with this.  The forest owner who cuts
down his trees has indeed cut them down, no-one questions that fact.
My point is merely that if the laws were stuctured in such a fashion
that his actions, which are radically altering the existing environment [by
environment here I just mean surroundings] should have had some sort of
binding review process in advance to show that there will be no harmful
consequences, or rather that any harm caused is considered acceptable.

This would reduce the number of lawsuits in court.

I realize that EIRs and timber harvest reports are intended to do just
that, but a) the review process is not binding and b) it is also biased
towards the logging/development side.

>:> I say the same thing.  First, I can't see that having a few more people 
>:> driving down your street causes any tangible harm.  

>: Maybe when this happens to you and *your* property values plummet, you
>: will sing a different tune.

>For someone who believes in principles, I doubt it.  Perhaps you could
>make that accusation against congress-critters, who will happily flip-
>flop with the political wind.

>You can not "own" property values.  If you are the first black to move
>into a neighborhood, and it can be proven that you caused property
>values to plummet, should you be liable to recompense everyone for lost
>equity?

>I don't think so.

Again this is an entirely different example from what was originally
given.  You may not "own" property values; true; but if they plummet
because of a lower air/noise quality, you cannot argue that increased
traffic doesn't "cause tangible harm".  Now while some bigots may dispute
with me on this, I hardly think the air/noise quality in your neighborhood
will be lowered if a non-WASP family moves in.

	-shari
-- 
 the one, the only, the big n growly  |  If one blows fire against the wind,
 Dragon Monster!  Rawr! Rawr! Rawr!   |   one must take care not to get the
========>bafta@ucscb.ucsc.edu<========|         smoke in one's eyes.