Smoltz had lived in his house for several years and had a pool in his back yard. Chandler bought the house next door and had an extension built onto the side of it, which created a new shadow over Smoltz’s pool. Smoltz sued Chandler to have the extension taken down, as it eliminated the enjoyment of his pool that had existed when Smoltz bought the house and that he had no reason to expect to go away.

I don’t think Chandler’s extra construction was ever removed because Smoltz just moved and stopped fighting it. My libertarian nature caused me to side with Smoltz back then and I still side with him 100%.

The soccer arena clearly diminishes her enjoyment of her property, which she never expected to sit right next to a gigantic soccer arena. If an airport or an oil derrick or some other loud/dirty/polluting thing went up next to her already owned and used property, I would say her right as prior homesteader negated the right of others to build next-door to her and destroy the use and enjoyment of the property that existed when she settled on it and that she expected to continue. Maybe the same argument can be made for an obtrusive and ugly eyesore. I’m torn.

I think when I get home I’ll watch that Stephan Molyneux video.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-KxER4Wv7JE