Position on personal property rights as it pertains to land.
I believe that as long as a person is not in violation of any laws, they should be able to do as they reasonably desire on his or her own land. This position will be considered when determining the rights of neighbors who may be in disagreement with the proposed change of use of their neighbors land.
For the purpose of this statement, one should understand that when a person owns land, that individual owns a “bundle of rights” to said land. Which includes, but is not limited to the right to peaceably exist, the right to reasonably use or improve said land to its “highest and best use”. The County would reserve the ability to assist the landowners with suggested improvements that might include infrastructure or access easements. Continuity to others land may also be considered. The suggestion of said encroachments should only be used to assist landowner’s ability to utilize the “highest and best use” practices. Nothing in this statement should be construed to be a way to force landowners into submission to the County’s desires.
The County should not infringe on a landowners right of perseverance, meaning that if a land owner wishes to maintain an existing zoning classification on their land the County should not make a change to that classification without the express consent of the land owner and if applicable with just compensation. Likewise, if a landowner desires to change their zoning classification it should be achieved by means of a pre-determined set of steps including: (1) a review by an un-biased panel of County employees who’s sole objective is to determine if future infrastructure accommodations are met and how proposed land use affects the “highest and best use” practices, and (2) review of the proposal by a board of planning and zoning experts, appointed by the Commissioner triune who serve as described in state statutes, take into consideration the suggestions from the un-biased County panel and furthermore incorporate public testimony, form a final proposal of desired use and submit said proposal and final recommendation to the commissioner triune, and (3) the commissioner triune will make a final decision on the desired land use.
Disagreements between two adjacent landowners are best worked out in the private sector. Understanding that each landowner has solidarity to ones adjacent neighbors provides for the basis of determining variances, or conclusions of disagreements. Exceptions to this would include grievances that one landowner’s actions adversely affect another’s “bundle of rights” or directly affects ones land usability adversely. Where appropriate, applications for construction or zoning changes may be halted until such grievances are settled, otherwise, disagreements that cannot be resolved between landowners should be settled through the courts.
Get involved- donate now!
Visit Jim's legislative site: Missouri first.com
"If we value the pursuit of knowledge we must be free to follow wherever that search may lead us”- A. Stevenson
This site paid for and maintained by the Committee to Elect Jim Viebrock
P.O. Box 176
Republic, MO. 65738
Renee Viebrock, Treasurer