A neighborhood association in Boise is fighting a proposal to develop a 226-unit subdivision. The Northwest Neighborhood Association (NWNA) contends that the development would prejudice its “substantial rights to ‘open space and rural character.’”
Rights pertain to freedom of action. If one desires to live in a neighborhood with open space and a rural character, one is free to take the actions necessary to obtain that value. However, there is no right to prohibit others from taking non-coercive actions to obtain what they value.
Presumably members of NWNA purchased their homes because they valued living in a rural setting. They were free to act in the pursuit of their values. A rational person would realize that nearby open space might be developed some time in the future. If he wanted that open space to remain so, he would be free to purchase the land and do with it as he desired. This is his moral right as the owner of the property.
However, if the owner of that land chooses to develop it, that is his moral right as the owner of the property. Developing land violates nobody’s rights per se.
NWNA’s lawsuit was recently heard in a county district court. In her ruling, the judge noted that
many of NWNA’s members presumably live in the housing developments surrounding this area, and their housing developments presumably caused the same conditions they now object to.
In other words, the members of NWNA moved into a previously undeveloped area and by that fact, altered the rural character of the area. They now want to deny others that same freedom.
It’s bad enough that opponents of property rights misunderstand and misrepresent the right to property. It’s even more grating when property rights are used as an argument to violate property rights.