I attended a work session of the Common Council of the City of Brazil recently.

One of the issues that was discussed was the keeping of chickens within the city limits. While there was some discussion of the health issues to the fowls and humans, there was more discussion on the effect of keeping of fowls and other barnyard animals on property values.

One citizen stated that he had thirty birds and another sixty on order, according to the guidelines that I found on PoultryOne's website (http://poultryone.com/articles/housing.html ), a flock of ninety birds would require a coop with a minimum size of 60 square feet (6 foot by 10 foot or equivalent) and an outdoor run 720 square feet (30 foot by 24 foot or equivalent). The total space requirement for a flock of ninety birds, according to those guidelines, is 780 square foot; which means that the size of the property, the location of the facilities, the proximity of human abodes to the chickens, and other things must be considered to protect the health of the public.

However, the issue came before the Council due to the fact that this citizen's neighbor's house is up for sale and that person was concerned about the man's chicken coop being in sight affecting the value of property. Greed rears its ugly head!

On the issue of the value of property, other citizens in the audience brought out the fact that they had bought and developed properties, now in the county but with the city considering annexation, as hobby farms with the intent to keep animals. Simply stated, the money that they had invested in those properties would be lost if they could no longer use their land for the purpose that they had bought it and they would lose more money as they would be taxed and have to expend money for upkeep on the property.

Where does your neighbor's property rights end? Doesn't it end at the property line? Isn't the selling price of an item an agreement between the buyer and the seller without the involvement of others?

I know that if I see an item at one store that I desire at one price and the same item at another at a different price, I'm inclined to buy at the lowest price. As with our school corporation and the Wallace property that was being considered for the Bus facility, the seller set a price and the potential buyer made an offer. The price was not agreed upon so the seller declined the offer. Isn't that the "free" market in action?

In my lifetime, I've been made many offers by others to purchase items that I own and offered to buy many items. No items ever changed hands without the price being agreed upon, excepting when items were stolen without my knowledge as in the case of a lawnmower. (That was a funny incident as the lawnmower was junk and the thief could have had it without risk for the asking.) In all of those transactions, I have never considered anything except the value that I place on the item and the price that I am willing to pay or the offered amount I would receive.

When I step on a car lot to buy a truck, I do not care what price that is on the car beside it. When I look at real estate, I consider many things, but I do not consider the house next door. I would consider the situation if there were an apartment building or a bar next door to a property as that would be a safety, security, and privacy issue to me, but a home, empty lot,, or other business is of little concern. Even if I took issue with what is on a property beside one I was considering, that is subject to change with the ownership of that property and the desires of the owner. I have been petitioned for the owners of properties near me to install a mobile home, to build a building that is the new VFW, and to put apartments on an empty lot. I have agreed with some of these uses and disagreed with others, but with little regard to the value I might get if I were to offer my property at sale. That value will be set when I do consider selling and at that time the buyer will have the right to make an offer. If we agree, this property will change ownership.

Greed has became the American way if it wasn't from the very beginning. Sitting in the council room, I thought of the phrase of "No taxation without representation". Isn't that just another way of saying "no sale" unless I agree to the price? Wasn't the issue of slavery in America an issue of property rights as the slaves were considered property?

America is not about freedom and liberty, it is about greed, money, and control. As long as your neighbor can convince enough people to stop you from doing what you want with what you have, you are not free.

What say you?