[winter_blue]

What restricts someone from constructing a tall building?

If I buy a piece of land, and it's my property, I can do whatever I what with it right? Who can stop me from constructing a tall building on my own property?

The United States is a free country right? I assume a free country respects property owner's freedom to whatever[1] they want with their land?

[1] Of course excluding actions would cause significant harm to one's neighbors, like environmental pollution.

[mcherm]

> What restricts someone from constructing a tall building?

Building codes.

> ...I can do whatever I what with it right? Who can stop me [...] The United States is a free country right?

You are dangerously close to setting the bozo bit (http://c2.com/cgi/wiki?SetTheBozoBit).

[BinaryIdiot]

Today I learned about the Bozo Bit. I'm not sure how I have never run into that reference before.

[croon]

(First off, apology.)

And yet your alias is all too apt.

[outworlder]

> If I buy a piece of land, and it's my property, I can do whatever I what with it right?

No.

> The United States is a free country right?

Nothing to do with the United States. Most countries have zoning laws.

[winter_blue]

I was actually asking that question in a rhetorical sense.

I'm well aware of zoning laws. I think when they're taken too far, they impinge on personal liberty.

There are localities that mandate that every house be painted the same color. The Bay Area zoning laws benefit a few (the landlords) at great cost to everyone else who lives there, and stunts the growth of the regional economy. (If taller building were allowed and property prices were more sane, there would be more companies and more people, thus leading to economic growth).

I think what we need is a constitutional limit on state power in the United States. The Tenth Amendment[1] and the Enumerated Powers Clause[2] limit federal overreach, but there is no analogous limit on state power in the U.S. Constitution. The states' powers are not enumerated, well-defined or limited in any way, and states are free to legislate on almost anything (unless it infringes on an enumerated right of the people or a right covered under Ninth Amendment[3]).

[1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tenth_Amendment_to_the_United_...

[2] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Enumerated_powers

[3] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ninth_Amendment_to_the_United_... -- "The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people."

[Analemma_]

> I'm well aware of zoning laws. I think when they're taken too far, they impinge on personal liberty.

Well then it's a good thing we have courts to decide what "too far" is. The Supreme Court has decided that zoning laws are not inherently unconstitutional (Euclid v. Amber), but they've struck down more infringing laws on multiple occasions. Maybe you don't agree with the exact balance they've chosen, but that's your problem, not a fatal flaw of our government.

> I think what we need is a constitutional limit on state power in the United States.

We already have one: the Supremacy Clause. Federal laws and the national constitution override state laws in all cases. If a certain right is not granted either by a state or by the Supremacy Clause, it's because both the state and the Federal government have decided that particular right isn't a natural one. Again, you seem to be taking your particular conceptions of liberty and what the law should be, and deciding the government is flawed for not obeying them. A lot of us like the current system.

If there's a particular right you feel should be Constitutionally protected against state laws, we have a system for that with Constitutional amendments enforced by the Supremacy Clause. Propose one to your representative if you like. But your suggestion of more non-specific Constitutional limits on state power is not going to win you many followers: the vague right-libertarianism of your attitude will alienate the Left, and the Right will balk at your suggestion of more Federal limits on state power. You're walking a lonely road here.

[winter_blue]

You've got a lot of good points. I agree that the current system works very well, and I personally appreciate it deeply (esp. considering how well-functioning it is, compared to many other countries today). But there's always room for improvement, and I was just suggesting something that I think could be an improvement.

Thanks for the well-thought-out comment.

[WillPostForFood]

Why do you think having federal government pass laws to override local government is less threatening to personal liberty than allowing local governments to manage themselves?

[winter_blue]

The Bill of Rights[1] restricts both federal and state power. It, empowered by the Fourteenth[2], has been used by the courts to strike down state (and federal) laws as unconstitutional several times. This has overall been in the interest of the people, and have served to protect our individual liberty -- wouldn't you say so? And the rights of the people enumerated Bill of Rights is supreme over all laws whether passed by Congress, state government, or local government.

What I'm essentially arguing for is for a sort of massive expansion of individual liberty through federal restriction of state power, by for example, having a list of "Enumerated Powers of the States" similar to the federal Enumerated Powers clause added to the Constitution, and establishing (just as in the Tenth Amendment) that all powers not specifically delegated to the states are reserved to the people. This would expands personal liberty, as it would put well-defined limits on what the states can legislate on.

[1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_Bill_of_Rights

[2] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fourteenth_Amendment_to_the_Un...

[bitserf]

Some of your neighbours' rights may include not having a 100 floor tower go up next to them blocking all their sun, as an example.

[Johnny555]

Of course excluding actions would cause harm to their neighbors with their actions.

What would you call it when your new 50 story building leaves neighboring properties in permanent shadow, or get in the way of their previous panoramic views of the bay?

[algorias]

There are things you are not allowed to do even on your own property for very good reasons, e.g. storing radioactive waste.

Limits on building height can make sense in some places, even if not in this particular case.

[surfmike]

Zoning laws.

[rconti]

You must be new here.

[Alupis]

> What restricts someone from constructing a tall building?

The insane laws of the bay area might restrict you, for starters.