Quote:
That's kind of the point I was trying to make. The value of the "nice" house's location has decreased significantly since the "Clampetts" moved in next door. The owner has suffered a monetary loss due to actions of a third party, and he has no recourse under local laws (this is Alaska, after all, where independence sometimes runs amok) to obtain alleviation or compensation.

Right, but that's IMO still no grounds to restrict the Clampetts' freedom of action. If Madonna happens to bring a new single out the same week Britney does, Britney suffers a monetary loss (or, at least, less monetary gain), but it's not right to restrict Madonna's freedom of action on that basis alone. House-buying for monetary gain, like all speculation, is gambling. If the Clampetts' neighbour genuinely didn't realise that, then perhaps McMansions, in line with other investments, should have one of those "The value of this property may go down as well as up" disclaimers shrinkwrapped across the front door.

There are, after all, probably still places in both the US and the UK where (sadly) house prices would go down if a black family moved in next door. Loss of house value alone cannot be a legally actionable event, chaos would ensue.

Peter