U.S. CitiesCity-Data Forum Index
Go Back   City-Data Forum > U.S. Forums > Pennsylvania > Pittsburgh
 [Register]
Please register to participate in our discussions with 1.5 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
Jump to a detailed profile or search
site with Google Custom Search

Search Forums  (Advanced)
Business Search - 14 Million verified businesses
Search for:  near: 
Reply Start New Thread
 
Old 10-21-2011, 10:57 AM
 
20,274 posts, read 18,231,015 times
Reputation: 2823
Quote:
Originally Posted by Drover View Post
There's no such easy or practical solution to guarding your privacy from above.
Roofs?

In other words, fences and hedges are mostly necessary for privacy because of windows.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message

 
Old 10-21-2011, 11:07 AM
 
Location: Chicago
36,082 posts, read 56,016,761 times
Reputation: 24760
Roofs aren't a lot of use for people who would like to use their yards without people staring down at them.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 10-21-2011, 11:27 AM
 
Location: Pittsburgh, PA
964 posts, read 662,892 times
Reputation: 678
I think having a gondola flying over your property would take away some of the privacy for yards and decks, and also be an eyesore. That's why I was wondering what the legals issues were, and what kind of compensation private land owners might be entitled to. Would compensation be some kind of a one time payment, or would there be some kind of long term lease agreement?

Not that I'm against the gondola idea. I think it's a very interesting idea, and could work well here.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 10-21-2011, 11:30 AM
 
20,274 posts, read 18,231,015 times
Reputation: 2823
Quote:
Originally Posted by Drover View Post
Roofs aren't a lot of use for people who would like to use their yards without people staring down at them.
OK, but let's think that one through. The fact is, the vast majority of people spend the vast majority of time at home inside their dwelling. With respect to their outside time, most people only do things that are not particularly private. That's why many people do not in fact surround their whole property with huge privacy fences and such.

And in fact in most urban settings, there will be plenty of people who can look down into your yard even if you have a fence--the angle might not be directly from above, but that isn't particularly relevant to whether they can see what you are doing. And, of course, air vehicles can pass freely overhead. All that explains why contra to Hollywood implications, American backyards are not in fact full of nude-sunbathing MILFs.

That's not to suggest that there won't be some people who are very adverse to having their outdoor activities be visible. But again, those people are already not living in urban environments.

So I really think this is the sort of thing which once people who are generally OK with living in urban environments got used to it, most of them would treat it as a non-issue (I'm specifically referring to the "privacy" issue--other possible issues, like noise, blocking light, and so on are different matters).

Edit: Oh, and I should probably note that things like trees, umbrellas, and awnings can in fact serve the same role as things like hedges and fences. But I honestly think it is mostly a non-issue.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 10-21-2011, 11:32 AM
 
Location: Chicago
36,082 posts, read 56,016,761 times
Reputation: 24760
Quote:
Originally Posted by BrianTH View Post
OK, but let's think that one through. The fact is, the vast majority of people spend the vast majority of time at home inside their dwelling. With respect to their outside time, most people only do things that are not particularly private. That's why many people do not in fact surround their whole property with huge privacy fences and such.

And in fact in most urban settings, there will be plenty of people who can look down into your yard even if you have a fence--the angle might not be directly from above, but that isn't particularly relevant to whether they can see what you are doing. And, of course, air vehicles can pass freely overhead. All that explains why contra to Hollywood implications, American backyards are not in fact full of nude-sunbathing MILFs.

That's not to suggest that there won't be some people who are very adverse to having their outdoor activities be visible. But again, those people are already not living in urban environments.

So I really think this is the sort of thing which once people who are generally OK with living in urban environments got used to it, most of them would treat it as a non-issue (I'm specifically referring to the "privacy" issue--other possible issues, like noise, blocking light, and so on are different matters).

Edit: Oh, and I should probably note that things like trees, umbrellas, and awnings can in fact serve the same role as things like hedges and fences. But I honestly think it is mostly a non-issue.
The Portland Ariel Tramway experience strongly suggests the issue can't be dismissed, nor will those potentially impacted accept it, so easily.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 10-21-2011, 11:42 AM
 
20,274 posts, read 18,231,015 times
Reputation: 2823
Quote:
Originally Posted by stburr91 View Post
I think having a gondola flying over your property would take away some of the privacy for yards and decks, and also be an eyesore.
Holding aside the politics--where what people imagine is often more important than what would they would actually experience--I think the "eyesore" issue is much more likely to be a long-term problem than the privacy issue. In fact, unless the vehicles had clear bottoms (which can sometimes be fun, but you can't do for all the vehicles because too many people get scared), you wouldn't be looking up at people looking down, you'd be looking up at the bottom of a public transit vehicle. That's a problem, but of the "eyesore" variety, not "privacy" variety.

Quote:
Would compensation be some kind of a one time payment, or would there be some kind of long term lease agreement?
Although I don't think there is any constitutional barrier to providing compensation in the form of a lease, I believe most similar takings end up being paid for by a lump sum payment (which probably makes the most sense financially for the taking authority).

Quote:
Not that I'm against the gondola idea. I think it's a very interesting idea, and could work well here.
So as I noted above, I think at least the politics of the NOMBY problem are serious enough to try to keep the routes along streets or non-residential land. And while I don't think takings of air easements as necessary would end up too expensive, it could add up.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 10-21-2011, 11:47 AM
 
20,274 posts, read 18,231,015 times
Reputation: 2823
Quote:
Originally Posted by Drover View Post
The Portland Ariel Tramway experience strongly suggests the issue can't be dismissed, nor will those potentially impacted accept it, so easily.
I have been quite clear that I don't think all of the issues raised by routing over residential properties can be "dismissed easily". There is ample reason to believe that at a minimum, it would cost authorities some amount of money to compensate underlying property owners, and I have consistently noted that there could well be significant political opposition.

At the same time, I would hope you would be willing to consider that not every anticipatory problem cited by a NIMBY (or NOMBY) is necessarily well-grounded (no pun intended).
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 10-21-2011, 12:00 PM
 
6 posts, read 2,417 times
Reputation: 12
It's hard for me to fully understand the "privacy" as a problem - what are the actual rules for buildings?
may I stop or ask a compensation if my neighbour builds a two-story home and so be able to look into my backyard?
What happens downtown if a building is rebuilt with more stories or substituted by a high-rise skyscraper?
What happens to homes built on slopes, that surely Pittsbugh don't lacks , will the bottom one have a compensation for the fact that the buildings higher up will have a visual?

If a gondola line could have a problem, surely it was already happened thousands of times with buildings...
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 10-21-2011, 01:34 PM
 
20,274 posts, read 18,231,015 times
Reputation: 2823
Quote:
Originally Posted by GeorgeTheTH View Post
what are the actual rules for buildings?
So by way of background, property owners are generally entitled to use their land to the fullest extent otherwise allowed (meaning subject to any applicable zoning and other regulations).

There are some exceptions. You can get in trouble for causing a "nuisance", which is an unreasonable interference with another owner's "quiet enjoyment" of their property. But that typically requires some sort of encroachment on the other property (a smell, a sound, or so on), and in any event doesn't cover things which are a reasonable use of your own property (so having a crying baby in your house isn't a nuisance), and almost certainly wouldn't apply to merely building tall enough such that it happens you can see into your neighbor's yard.

There is also something called a negative easement, which is a right to prevent another owner from doing something they would otherwise be entitled to do. But you almost always need to have that negative easement created by some sort of agreement or deed by a prior owner. So usually you can't just claim you have a negative easement to prevent someone from building tall enough to see in your yard--some owner of that property must have granted that negative easement in order for you to make that claim. Incidentally, this has come up a lot in cases of owners claiming they have a negative easement which prevents another property owner from blocking their view, or cutting down trees they like, and so on. Generally unless they can show some prior agreement or deed to that effect (or some local regulation), they will lose.

But as I was noting above, this doesn't automatically apply to our hypothetical gondola system, because all of these principles depend on the notion the other owner does in fact own their own land. Under the Causby case, you have a property interest in the air immediately above your property, but below navigable airspace. So FIRST the public authority has to get the right to use that air path, and THEN the public authority making reasonable use of that right will be like building a tall building next door. And that first step may, and likely will, cost public authorities something.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 10-21-2011, 06:24 PM
 
Location: Chicago
36,082 posts, read 56,016,761 times
Reputation: 24760
Quote:
Originally Posted by BrianTH View Post
I have been quite clear that I don't think all of the issues raised by routing over residential properties can be "dismissed easily".
No you haven't. You were dismissive of it in the very post I quoted. "Oh, they'll get used to it."

Quote:
Originally Posted by BrianTH View Post
At the same time, I would hope you would be willing to consider that not every anticipatory problem cited by a NIMBY (or NOMBY) is necessarily well-grounded (no pun intended).
I would like to know when I have ever stated or even gave the impression that every anticipatory problem cited by NIMBY is well-grounded and therefore why I would need to consider otherwise.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.

Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.


Reply
Please update this thread with any new information or opinions. This open thread is still read by thousands of people, so we encourage all additional points of view.

Quick Reply
Message:


Options
X
Data:
Loading data...
Based on 2000-2011 data
Loading data...

123
Hide US histogram

Over $84,000 in prizes was already given out to active posters on our forum and additional giveaways are planned!

Go Back   City-Data Forum > U.S. Forums > Pennsylvania > Pittsburgh

All times are GMT -6.

2005-2014, Advameg, Inc.

City-Data.com - Archive 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20, 21, 22, 23, 24, 25 - Top