There's money in allowing dumping toxic waste on land, so what if your neighbor wanted that cash? Curb her, or are her property rights preeminent over town regulatory supervisory ordinances?
Switch instead to the rental cap question, where the XXX store hater group would likey bellow much as their "conservative" allies; this link and here.
The issue of split rights to "rent it" vs. to regulate occupancy will be a certiorari issue reaching the Minnesota Supreme Court for definitive resolution; with the Court of Appeals having held a town ordinance Constitutional - opinion online; Google here (and alternate posts here and here}.
And of course you know which side those bleeding heart liberals at ACLU will argue as friend of the court.
Cato Inst. amicus brief urging reversal. ACLU brief online here.
This Google.
UPDATE: Property rights mavens, ask yourselves, would you like the quiet enjoyment of your home disturbed by the neighbor next door renting out to a college town Animal House? Moreover, what about Animal House cloning all up and down the block, without limit? Owners sequentially deciding the highest and best use being to move and so rent? Student rental taking over neighborhood after neighborhood, falling domino style?
What if a few blocks of owners got together and subjected their properties to a restrictive covenant? Private regulation by agreement, vs government impositions - is there a limit to such exercise of property rights, and if so, how far should it reach? And could such covenanting be lawfully set up to run in perpetuity, encumbering alienability of land?
