[gunsmoker]

Economics

What about the nuisance property bringing down the value of several neighboring properties? Does the government have a legitimate interest in keeping property values up? What if the guy's shooting range makes his property worth $10,000 more, but it makes the homes of his three closest neighbors worth $10,000 less than they otherwise would be if not burdened by having to put up with all the noise? Subtracting the one winner from the three losers, the government's tax base would be $20,000 smaller. This would have a ripple effect on the local economy, too.

Suppose a developer wants to buy 100 acres of timberland and pasture from a farmer for 5 million dollars and put in a subdivision of homes, with 300 homes plus a community park with a pool, tennis courts, etc. Those 300 houses would normally sell for $200,000 each. But suppose this subdivision is located just behind a gun club with an active shooting range. There are noise concerns and safety concerns. Some people would consider it to be a plus to be near a shooting range, but most familes would prefer not to hear the noise. Because of the shooting range, 20 gun-friendly families pay full asking price, but 280 of the other homes sell for significantly less than that, due only to the range. So now the developer has failed to realize the big profit that he was counting on. The government isn't getting near as much tax money as they would normally get for this kind of development.

If the owner of the shooting range wanted to make a deal, he could probably negotiate with the subdivision developer to close the range in exchange for some money or land. The free market would give each an incentive to bargain with the other and come out in a better position than they were before the deal.

But what if the owner of the shooting range simply can't be influenced by money? What if he's not interested in efficiency, superior outcomes, fair compensation, etc? He just wants to shoot. Big and loud, whenever. Should an injunction be available? How about the government using the power of eminent domain to acquire his land, or at least the shooting range part of his property? Would that taking be "for public use?"

 

[Gunstar1]

First, if the government had that incentive to keep property prices up, it would not have passed a law protecting firing ranges. So the government feels that protecting firing ranges is more important than the possible depreciation in surrounding property value.

No, eminent domain law passed last year will not allow the taking of the land and giving it to a devolper. It would have to be land bought and to be used by the government. The constitution may allow it, but our state law does not.

http://www.legis.state.ga.us/legis/2005 ... hb1313.htm

 

[Wiley]

Gunsmoker, you're missing the point of the Range Protection Law.

If someone buys a property near an existing Range (such as MP's) they can not complain later about the noise. They knew or should have known the Range was there (due diligence). The same logic applies to a developer.

The anti's have used this specious argument in the past to try to ban or limit any firearms related activities, which is why this law was passed in Georgia and in many other states.

You can hear the same whining about airports and Air Force Bases. The airport was present and operating (in some cases decades) prior to people moving, building right next to it. And now they want to shut it down because it's noisy. Peachtree-DeKalb (PDK) is a prime example in the Metro Atlanta area.

If they thought the noise was going to bother them, they shouldn't have moved there in the first place! I'll also add that it is NOT the goverments job to insure developers make a profit or even keep them in business.

 

[Malum Prohibitum]

The real question is, does that mean that since MP's original range was there first and someone built a house too close to the range, that it is not MP's duty to move the range or that he cannot be charged for having one within 100 yards and the neighbors have to either live with it or move the house further away.

I am not sure this is what the law means.

If someone buys a property near an existing Range (such as MP's) they can not complain later about the noise.

I think this is most probably what it means.

Not sure.

 

[Malum Prohibitum]

Re: Economics

Suppose a developer wants to buy 100 acres of timberland and pasture from a farmer for 5 million dollars and put in a subdivision of homes, with 300 homes plus a community park with a pool, tennis courts, etc. Those 300 houses would normally sell for $200,000 each. But suppose this subdivision is located just behind a gun club with an active shooting range. There are noise concerns and safety concerns. Some people would consider it to be a plus to be near a shooting range, but most familes would prefer not to hear the noise. Because of the shooting range, 20 gun-friendly families pay full asking price, but 280 of the other homes sell for significantly less than that, due only to the range. So now the developer has failed to realize the big profit that he was counting on. The government isn't getting near as much tax money as they would normally get for this kind of development.

Maybe the developer should have checked for a shooting range in the area. This is his business after all. Am I supposed to feel sorry for this hypothetical dumbass?

But what if the owner of the shooting range simply can't be influenced by money? What if he's not interested in efficiency, superior outcomes, fair compensation, etc? He just wants to shoot.

Then let him shoot and keep your armed government goons out of it!

 

[Gunstar1]

The real question is, does that mean that since MP's original range was there first and someone built a house too close to the range, that it is not MP's duty to move the range or that he cannot be charged for having one within 100 yards and the neighbors have to either live with it or move the house further away.

I am not sure this is what the law means.

If someone buys a property near an existing Range (such as MP's) they can not complain later about the noise.

I think this is most probably what it means.

Not sure.

I am not sure either, but it is an interesting question.

 

[kkennett]

In an update to the Etowah Valley Sporting Clays case, Dawson County has started an eviction proceeding against EVSC. While the judge has ruled on the county's request for injunctions, he has not issued a final order. Thus, the county feels as though their 'nuisance' determination is still active. At this point, the park is still open and likely will remain so. This will most likely hasten the judge's final ruling and perhaps put an end to this mess. An update can be found at:

http://www.etowahvalleysporting.com/