Property Rights? What About Property Responsibilities?

There has been much said about property rights in the battle for the future of Murrieta. I agree that in this country, property rights are indeed important. People have the right to utilize their property for the betterment of their fortunes, it’s what this country is founded upon. There’s one little problem. Where does property rights end and property responsibilities begin? As an example I would suggest weed abatement. If a property owner neglects this duty and his or her lot becomes overgrown, the eyesore of an overgrown parcel gradually becomes a fire hazard for itself and for adjacent properties. In other words, one owner’s neglect of responsibility can risk the integrity of all.

When a property owner wishes to cash in on the value of their empty parcel, they certainly possess the right as an American to do so. But with this right comes the responsibility to ensure that this suggested improvement, i.e. housing tract, strip mall, etc. does not adversely effect the integrity of surrounding properties or the community as a whole. There’s the rub, because the lines between rights and responsibilities are extremely subjective, and the rights of the city council representing the citizens, to make the determination between how much or how little civic improvement is required is frequently brought into question.

The owner would like to sell or build with an eye towards maximum profit, and any demands from the city for improvements or mitigation are resented. The city, in its role as protector of the public’s interests, must require these improvements and mitigations from the property owners for the good of the citizens at large and for the long term. The city must assume that a property owner’s intentions, whether to continue as a resident or to take their profits and move to Switzerland, will indeed effect the city for the long term.

The one-sided assumption that property rights are an absolute must be re-evaluated with an eye towards the long-term health of the city containing this property. There are two sides to every coin. When devising or making changes to a city plan, it must be acknowledged by all property owners within city limits that their property rights are still subject to the good of the whole of its citizens. This also applies to adjacent areas potentially effected. I would like to suggest however, that there is a substantial difference between the good of the whole and the good of the majority. Property responsibilities are subjective, but only with consideration of potential effect on traffic, schools, police/fire protection, and the many other factors involved, and this at just the neighborhood level.

When a city grows past a certain point the need for these systems and all other required city systems to mesh efficiently becomes much more important. The correct balance of commercial, residential, and multi-use property must be maintained. Access and protection for the good of all citizens is of paramount importance. This can only be accomplished with efficient planning, not for the next two years, but for the next two hundred.

The scornful reference to “not in my backyard” by any citizen must be taken much more seriously than in the past because the availability of alternate locations and routes is becoming reduced daily. And just so, this “NIMBY” citizen must also consider, “If not here, where else?” The perception of the city as a component of the global village is not merely hype. It is merely that the size of the backyard where these things are not has become much larger than anyone could imagine.