OUR VIEW: You have no right to a room with a view (vote in poll)

Private property is not a difficult concept. Yet too often in Colorado, private property owners with reasonable and lawful plans for development are tripped up by neighbors who think they’re entitled to control nearby space.

Gazette Side Streets columnist Bill Vogrin explained in his Thursday column a heated neighborhood dispute in the Austin Heights and Park Vista Estates neighborhoods, north of Austin Bluffs Parkway near Barnes Road. Residents have been packing meetings and sending off protest letters to city officials about a plan by Scholl to develop 12 acres of vacant land he owns plans to develop with 27 custom homes.

People who live near the 12-acre site like the fact it’s vacant and would like to keep it that way — at Scholl’s expense. Some neighbors worry about more traffic as a result of new residents. Others complain they will see houses out of their windows, rather than the mountain view they have long enjoyed — thanks entirely to Scholl’s vacant land.

Vogrin reminded these neighbors that the lot isn’t government open space. It’s private property. In this country, people have property rights protected by the Fifth Amendment. Our country’s founders viewed private property as the very foundation of freedom and prosperity. Without property rights, none of Scholl’s neighbors would enjoy their own homes. None of their employers would have space for them to work. They wouldn’t have cars, which generate traffic.

If the neighbors somehow manage to deprive Scholl of his plans to make reasonable use of his land, they will allocate his property for their own interests. Here’s what the Fifth Amendment says about that: “nor shall private property be taken for public use without just compensation.”

Nobody is entitled to a view through another person’s property. Nobody is entitled to a lonely street at another person’s expense. Scholl is not required to subsidize a mountain view for his neighbors at the expense of leaving vacant a lot that’s otherwise worth millions.

View corridors are desirable and important. So are barely-used streets that double as sidewalks. But amenities come at a cost. Those who demand them should foot the bill. To live with a grand view of Manhattan, one must buy a condo near the top of a building. The higher the condo, the more it costs.

View corridors and desolate streets are for sale. So Scholl’s neighbors have a great option for preserving their the amenities they enjoy. They may organize, pool their money, and buy the 12 acres. Or, they may try to convince the city or county to buy the acreage as open space. What they cannot do is conquer a legitimate development plan simply to preserve a view and tame streets.

Money is how development disputes are best resolved. Those who wish to control private property should try to buy it. Doing so is fair, moral, legal and just. Those who cannot afford to buy a view, or to keep a street to themselves, must realize they aren’t entitled to these luxuries at another individual’s expense. If they are, property rights mean little. VOTE TO THE RIGHT >>>

— By Wayne Laugesen, editorial page editor, for the editorial board