Published Messenger Newspapers, Adelaide, October 1, 2003.


PRESERVE US OUR AMENITY


WHAT if Michelangelo had taken a hammer to his Pieta, the most sublimely beautiful piece of marble ever wrought by hand, and smashed it to smithereens? Or Jackson Pollock had sliced into Blue Poles with a meat cleaver? Since they produced the works, would they be entitled to destroy them? Would it be possible to obtain a court order to prevent them from wrecking their own work? Or if I owned Blue Poles - if only - would I have the right to dispose of it as I wished even if it meant destroying a great piece of art? And in destroying it, what if my motive was to cause grief to the artist or to the previous owner, say, after a marital breakup or a business dispute? Such questions raise interesting issues regarding property rights. Property ownership forms the bedrock of the law: A man's home is his castle, a place where he ought to be free to act as he wishes within the law. Yes? No. Over the years, multiple layers of government regulations have restricted what we can do on our own properties. We cannot light an incinerator in the backyard; we cannot chop down a tree over a certain size; we cannot wash our cars in the driveway; we cannot play loud music; and we cannot stand in the bedroom window and expose ourselves. Such actions affect something called "amenity", the freedom of neighbours to enjoy their properties without undue interference or intrusion from next door. I plant a tree in my garden - good or bad?; I plant the tree in a position that obscures my neighbour's coastal view - good or bad?; I plant the tree and block the view to deliberately cause my neighbour aggravation - good or bad? At some point, one man's property rights become another's amenity. There is also a broader concept of public amenity, a shared benefit in a property that we all own and value and wish to enjoy. A national park is one example. Glenelg was another such place until Holdfast Shores blighted the beach, and the property rights of the few spoiled the amenity of the vast majority. Can anyone even remember when Glenelg had a beach? Grrr. The art gallery cannot burn its art collection and the museum cannot pawn its historic artefacts yet we permit something just as precious - our sunny breathing spaces - to be ruined forever for a quick buck. What they have done to the Glenelg foreshore is a disgrace and in protest I refuse to go there any more. Now watch this space: The next battleground will be the inner harbour at Port Adelaide where it is proposed to line the historic riverside with apartment blocks stacked up to 12 storeys high. Too high, too much, too many: The river will be turned into a canyon of shadows and wind tunnels. The Port's redevelopment is overdue, true enough, but it should be of a scale that takes account what the community values about the river and its historic precincts.