Hacker News Reader

Comment by ryandrake | Hacker News Reader

Real estate law has this concept of “Coming to the nuisance” where if you know that there is some kind of “nuisance” nearby and you move next to it anyway, you can’t complain about it later. I’m not a lawyer so I’m probably pedantically wrong about it in some way but that’s my understanding of it. People do this with small local airports all the time. They move in, knowing full well (or should know full well) that there is an airport there, then a year later they bitch and moan about the noise and try to shut it down.

View on HN

There is an asphalt factory 10 miles from where I live, on the access road to a major highway, and in the middle of lots of urban development. The factory has been around since the mid 80s.

There is a nearby new housing development with residents complaining about the air pollution (apparently it is really smelly) - and their response is "yeah, we've been here since before you were born, so whatev". It cracked me up.

Edit: Oh! I almost forgot, there are people who built their house next to a NASCAR track! WHO thinks that is a good idea?

Over time air pollution has to go out of cities anyway if people need to move to cities to be able to get a job. I think that's just a matter of time.

> Edit: Oh! I almost forgot, there are people who built their house next to a NASCAR track! WHO thinks that is a good idea?

People who don’t mind noise and want to make a shitload of their mortgage back on Airbnb.

Airbnb is the least of it I'd guess. More like parking, camping and vendors' rent, depending on how close they are.

> Edit: Oh! I almost forgot, there are people who built their house next to a NASCAR track! WHO thinks that is a good idea?

Depends on how often it's used I guess. At times I've lived a couple of blocks from a formula 1 track and right on a hairpin bend of an IndyCar track. Both were held once a year so even though I don't like car racing it was a feature not a problem.

must be related to the idiots that build their home next to Laguna Seca.

But those guys won, right? They got to shut down most activities there.

There’s a sound limit on the track, I think the decibel sensor is on the right side of turns 4-5. And you get 3 strikes or your out policy if you are over.

People make some interesting exhausts just for this track.

https://images.autotrader.com/scaler/620/420/cms/images/over...

Thunder hill has a similar policy but they move the Sensor around...

Similarly, there are people who moved adjacent to San Jose's Reid-Hillview airport and then complain about airplane noise from civil (small prop plane) aviation.

Reid-Hillview airport opened in 1937 when nothing but farmland surrounded it.

Hereabouts, there's an open rifle & shotgun range that has been around since 1940s. When it was built originally, it was a rural area. Since mid-90s, there were a bunch of suburban neighborhoods developed around the range, some of them right down from where the backstop berm is... and now the people who moved there are complaining that the range makes them unsafe.

I wonder if any of these residents complain about the GP in Austin.

An airport is as predictable a nuisance as a once-weekly gathering at a public park?

I can see where the airport is on a map in relation to my new apartment. It's reasonable to expect airport noise.

If I visit the apartment, if I spend a day walking around the neighborhood, is it reasonable to expect a, (illegally) loud party to happen at a given time at a given week?

Should chicano culture be preserved? Should people expect to be comfortable in these homes? The answer to both is yes.

When selling a property, the seller must disclose anything in the surrounding environs that may have a material impact on the property's value. For example, when I bought a home years ago, the disclosures were very long and included things like a super-fund site miles away.

This situation would certainly qualify for a residence--if a loud party shows up every weekend that makes traffic terrible for a while, that should have been disclosed.

But the issue here is with renters, and property management doesn't have to disclose that to renters.

> They move in, knowing full well (or should know full well) that there is an airport there, then a year later they bitch and moan about the noise and try to shut it down.

Would this be relevant for something that is in violation of the letter of the law? I ask this purely legally, as the ethical question of community rights and the tyranny of bureaucracy is a separate one.

That is an excellent question and it strikes to the heart of the difference between two people’s interpretation of a given statute (or body of law).

The Charlotte Rifle-Pistol Club has an outdoor range in a distant corner of the county. But developers have discovered the cheap land out there (cheap for a reason .. it's next to a shooting range) and started putting in subdivisions.

The club posted a large yellow sign by the entrance: "A safe & friendly neighbor since 1913" so that prospective homeowners could see it, as it was suspected that the realtors & sellers were not disclosing it's existence.

I live next to an airport, I consider that noise to be the sound of progress abs economic growth.

Given enough people, loud complaining, money, and politicians ears you can get anything moved.

While most of the time that does appear to be the case, there are exceptions. eg:

https://www.latimes.com/local/lanow/la-me-martins-beach-supr...

Sounds like well off people moving from London to a sleepy village in the country and then complaining about the church clock chiming, cocks crowing, and the smell of silage from the farm next door.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com