My name for them: freeloaders

There's a story in today's New York Times, No View, No Garden, Just a Wall (registration required), about two neighboring upper east side Manhattan families who are feuding over one family's building of an extension to their home that blocks the view of the other family--a view of the first family's garden, which goes behind both properties. Both sides have gone to court over the matter.

I'm no expert in the New York City Building Code, and I wouldn't care to hazard a guess as to whether this particular extension is legal, but I'm pretty sure of this: They are probably entitled to build something on their land. The second family is not entitled to a view of the first family's garden. They didn't pay for it.

One can buy these rights. They're called easements, and they can entitle one to traverse a neighbor's property, or merely to have the view (an easement for light and air). But they have to bought from the owner of the property in question. Here, the complaining family, and the previous owners of their property, never did so.

Thus, all this time they've been getting a gift, a free view. Now they're unhappy it has ended. I'm not surprised--I've heard this kind of complaint before here in New York a number of times. People think they are entitled to views just because they've always had them. But they're not. One side of my apartment is on the lot line, overlooking a walkway to the rear of the next building. I know that the building could be extended right up to my windows--not that it's very likely. But if it did happen, I know I'd have no legal standing to complain.

And the second family here is not complaining about that, at least not in court--they are claiming the extension is illegal on other grounds. But what they're really unhappy about is the loss of their view. Well too bad. Their free view is no more. They should be happy they had it as long as they did.