Why should an investor not exercise agency to try and influence the outcome of their investment?
If what I do with my property negatively affects your investment perhaps you should've taken that into account when conducting your risk analysis instead of throwing a fit and making your problems my problem.
No investor is owed a profit (unless contractually stipulated).
If you live next to someone concerned about their investment, perhaps you should consider what mechanisms exist to prevent you from using your property in a way that would affect their investment.
This kind of argument can go on and on forever because there's no right answer. The homeowner can do what they want within the confines of the legal system on their property, and the investor can do what they want within the confines of the legal system to protect their investment.
Investment supports a class driven, divide building system.
Homes support humans.
One of the two above clearly, imho, has “right of way.”
Why shouldn't I simply arrogate to myself the right to direct all of society's resources to my own comfort? The Veil of Ignorance is nonsensical. I can condition probabilities of outcomes on my current state and choose appropriate action.
Why would I discard any power I have? That just transfers the balance of power to power of another sort that others have.
Me, I like some freedom.
Which I like. Your desire for freedom is unlikely to be very deep. You'll give it up to impose rules on your neighbor, most likely.
Just because you want it to be that way doesn't mean it will be, and me and others like me will keep pushing to be left alone by people who get a hard on looking to exert power over us.
They do though, always have and always will. Society can't function unless they do. You keep the noise down, don't play with noxious materials, you can't put a shooting range in your yard facing their house, can't build a building too close to their property, can't operate a business with customers without certain permitting, have to maintain a certain level of cleanliness... I could come up with dozens of things you have to do for the sake of your neighbors.
Pretty standard sociopathic capitalist formula, to be honest.
Your argument is premised on the law not being for sale and thus the distribution of power being extremely unequal and therefore unjust, but (at least in real life) you're wrong.
Or, absolute principles are rarely absolutely applicable.
[edit] I'm somewhat surprised by the contention that merely stating this hypothetical is "emboldening" the investor class.
Pardon: >> EMBOLDENING THE SUPPORT FOR THE INVESTMENT OWNING CLASS
whatever that means.
I bring it up as it was my experience as a renter whose quality of life (not investment value) was substantially impacted when I lived next to people who were operating a quasi-legal home auto repair shop. I think it's unfair to assume that anyone asking where a line should be drawn on what someone can do on their property is carrying water for faceless, inhumane capitalist corporate investor-vampires, or whatever. And BTW, doing whatever you want on your property at the expense of the neighbors' quality of life or investment value? Kinda antisocial as well.
No example given isn’t already covered by a law that already exists.
Except in the correlation to a “market” that this “investment” will be expected to perform on.
It puts capital and profit over humans and is deplorable behavior.
There are entire cohorts of people who cannot. Who own one home, barely, or are beholden to a landlord’s (sometimes corporate) whims.
Saying “what if they leak oil from junk cars” - resolved via environment law already.
“Noise complaint.” - resolved via law already.
Too many cars, too much blight? - laws already.
Every single example provided couches this as a potential harm to someone else’s investment, and strengthens the divide in class between those who can afford to “invest” and those who cannot and strive to simply exist.
Yes, people DO worry about investment. I do. I own my home. My only home. It’s paid off, largely speaking.
But it’s my home. I have NO desire or assumption that its value will go to my children or provide retirement income.
Because it’s a home.
And I look at my fellow working class neighbors in the same way.
If someone complains my home needing paint (it does) will affect (effect? I always forget) their investment - I will happily let them paint my house or they can f off.
>> it's believed that the code is intended to prevent small independent repair shops from popping up in someone's backyard
While other laws may cover each of the potential negative secondary effects of a backyard auto shop on the neighbors, that doesn't mean the group of behavior leading to violation of those laws should remain undefined.
Again, to me this has nothing to do with keeping value on an investment. My experience with this was renting... I now own (one) house, and my problem with what the neighbors do has to do with how it affects my health and quality of life.
Claiming every possible negative effect is covered by law makes no sense. Leaking chemicals? Could take years to be discovered in the water table. Noise? Not really enforced anywhere... especially not if the activity in question is otherwise legal / doesn't require a license.
I don't think it was a shallow objection... and I believe you're reading it through a classist lens of "what if some rich investment owner next door told me what to do on my property" without considering the other side, e.g. someone renting next door to people who do noxious stuff.
[edit] also, I can see from your point of view as a homeowner myself who's surrounded by creeping investment properties and Airbnb's... and certainly if they were telling me how to paint my house they could f off too. But that's aesthetic and about their investment value. I guess what I'm saying when you get down to it is the aesthetics of auto repair aren't the part that bothers me, it's living next door to the noise and pollution.
What “triggers” me is this idea that the default state is “consider investment” and not “does it harm one’s ability to enjoy their home.”
Sure you cab define “enjoy” as “watch value go up” but that’s clearly not what I mean.
The whole “and it harm none, do as you please”, imho, does not consider the wallet.
Which, when thinking about investments, is thinking about class divide and puts $ over people.
My neighborhood is largely renters. I’m a 1 family across from another 1 family. On my sides are multi families. Renters. Owned by corporations but not kept up. Some in pretty crappy disrepair.
If I wanted to claim they affected my prop value, I could. But those corps have MUCH more money to defend and hit back (my house needs paint, etc) … just the same. (That’s not my style though as said earlier)
Anyway. I’m tired and rambling. I do appreciate the replies and I do hope I’ve helped some bit to look at anything that comes out of the gate thinking $ before people - is widening the gap and harming people.
[1] https://www.smithsonianmag.com/science-nature/wondering-what...