In a recent post, Gunrights complained about how his neighbor was hassled for not paying $50 for a permit to install sprinklers on the parking strip on his property.  This may be seen as especially silly since, while poperty owners are obligated to maintain parking strips, they are very limited as to what they can do with the strip.  It is effectively a narrow stretch of city property that you have to take care of.  (Note to property developers:  not all sidewalks are separated from the street by a parking strip.  This problem could be avoided by having the sidewalk run adjacent to the street, although that would leave you with no good place for the mailbox.)

I find property rights to be a very interesting topic.  There has been a strongly libertarian feeling among many of the members of this site that has questioned any government placed limits on property ownership.  This has certainly included objection to property taxes, and probably also extends to zoning and building regulations (did Sim City teach us nothing!?).  Ultimately, the issue comes down to the following question:  Do your rights as a property owner outweigh your neighbors' rights?

Almost every law regarding the use of private property is designed to protect the rights of people other than the property owner.  Restrictions on land use for business or agriculture protects neighbors from the accompanying traffic, noises and smells.  Building permits are largely intended to ensure that building projects are done safely, which does benefit the current property owner, but it also protects those who may later buy the property (after all, you should be able to assume the risk for your own shoddy workmanship, but it's not fair to ask others to do so).  In the case of Gunrights' friend, a poorly installed sprinkler system could result in significant water waste and may even cause flooding in nearby homes.

The point is that property owners are not and should not be given unlimited rights within their properties.  The rights that are given are significant, but they are carefully constrained in order to maintain a broader set of freedoms than those of just the one owner.

I have a problem with your methods. Here I have brought up a specific abuse about parking and you then make a generalization for rebuttal. What the city is doing is placing aesthetics above the property owner. How about we stick to the subject or why don't you get your own blog? We cannot park on the street during the winter. I do not have a problem with prohibiting parking on the strip, but homeowners have spent considerable money trying to accomodate the city and their restrictions only to have the rules changed. Let me make a guess here. You rent, right? Why not try and understand what is like for the homeowner. They keep raising property taxes, utilities have skyrocketed and now this. I am really fed up. But since people like me who are a minority (own homes with a single wide driveway) we get stuck paying for someone elses idea of how the city should look. Your argument that these laws are designed to protect other property owners doesn't hold water here.

As far as the sprinkler system, they aren't going to inspect it. They just want to get the fee. I know this for a fact. Life is just theoretical with you. Someday when you graduate and possibly join the real world you might find out that it isn't exactly like you imagined. But then there we a thousand others just like you to take your place. God help us all.

 And for "my specific rights" they are rapidly disappearing. Those in government always want more power. That way they gain more power and a bigger budget themselves. It is a vicious cycle which obviously you have yet to experience. You are truly Mr. Know it all, aren't you. Is there any subject ,to whit ,you have no opinion?

I recommend that you contact the Community Development Department at the number listed on the bottom of their letter and voice your concerns. It is not uncommon for bureaucrats to make policy decisions without considering the full repercussions of them, especially in situations that are not typical (such as places where driveways are only single wide).

The whole point of their campaign is to raise property values for homeowners. They are trying to make it more difficult for property owners who violate zoning or who increase the occupancy of their properties without putting in appropriate infrastructure (such as wider driveways). The city appears to be giving property owners a chance to remedy problems before they start enforcing these rules.

The specific rights that property owners are entitled to are potentially changeable. They certainly vary from place to place. For example, in some rural areas, there are almost no restrictions on what can be built on a property, but in a large city, there are severe restrictions placed on property ownership. On top of that, the property owned is often better defined in cities (often as a finite three-dimensional region, although even rural properties have realizable limits both up and down). To own some item of property is actually to be entitled to the rights of ownership, which are unique (meaning that only one person or entity can possess them), but those rights are always limited.

Probably. There are some things that I haven't heard about. There also are subjects about which I have very little opinion. As for the know-it-all thing, I know a lot, and I often do additional "research" prior to completing posts. I often find my posts changing as a result. For example, on the parking thread, I was going to say that there are no unilateral restrictions regarding parking on the street, but then I read through the code and found a few that might apply.

I think that you may have an incorrect notion that I just disagree with everyone, but that's because it's hard to recognize shades of ideology that are all in the same direction. This is similar to how everything feels hot to someone who is very cold or how everyone just seems to be short to a 7 footer. The point is that, while I am very active politically, I fall into a part of the political spectrum that is normally inhabited by people who are fairly indifferent or at least inactive politically. The end result is that I tend to disagree with almost every pundit. What's worse, I often disagree with the justifications that people use to defend their positions, even when I agree with the positions.

So, in answer to your question, no. There aren't any subjects on which I have no opinion.