Nuisance law gives guidance in noise case
I read the article in Saturday’s paper about dirt bikes and the conflict between the land owners. As a developer, builder and attorney I feel I can comment fairly on this and want to make a few points I feel need to be considered by Kootenai County and the courts if it gets there.
Mr. Stam purchased his 100 acres for the purposes of recreation and the creation of a subdivision. If the property is zoned to accept any type of a subdivision he is absolutely entitled to creation of a subdivision. Mr. Stam is apparently successful if he can purchase 100 acres and have a helicopter. More power to him for these accomplishments.
The old Nuisance Law was used for many years in England, where our common law came from, and then in the United States, where it was used as the “first come first served” doctrine. This means if people have homes and a factory or pig farm or cattle operation comes in as a neighbor, they were either subject to pay damages or to have an injunction placed on them by the court to stop. Because they were creating jobs and producing an economic benefit to the community, most of the time they were not stopped but paid damages to the first people there and then continued their operations. This doctrine began to change over the years and now the economic impact of the defendant (meaning party creating the nuisance) was a key element when a court reviews the conflict.
The old “coming to the Nuisance” doctrine was abandoned and a more comprehensive review by the court was created. An intentional invasion of another’s interest is a nuisance if it is unreasonable. The court will determine if the gravity of the harm of another’s interest in the use and enjoyment of land is unreasonable and the harm caused by the defendant is serious and the financial burden of compensating for this harm outweighs the utility of the defendant’s conduct. The financial burden of compensating the land owner would not make the continuation of the nuisance not feasible.
In simple language, paying money to the land owner would not stop the nuisance. It would still be there and the nuisance would still be a nuisance and disturb the quiet enjoyment of the land owner. Riding dirt bikes does not create an economic benefit for the community and would cause the review to look more toward disturbance of the quiet enjoyment neighbors are entitled.
Idaho Code addresses nuisance in 55-101 NUISANCE DEFINED. Anything which is injurious to health or morals, or is indecent, or offensive to the senses, or an obstruction to the free use of property, so as to interfere with the comfortable enjoyment of life or property, or unlawfully obstructs the free passage or use, in the customary manner, of any navigable lake, or river, stream, canal, or basin, or any public park, square, street, or highway, is a nuisance.
Because there are a large number of people affected by the dirt bikes on the 100 acres, this is a public nuisance. Idaho code 52-102. PUBLIC NUISANCE. A public nuisance is one which affects at the same time an entire community or neighborhood, or any considerable number of persons, although the extent of the annoyance or damage inflicted upon individuals may be unequal.
The state of Idaho allows for legal action which could result in damages to be paid to the owners harmed or to an injunction to stop the harm. Mr. Stam’s representative, Rand Wichman, a former county economic director is a hired gun. He would of course find a way to allow the nuisance now, where in the past he would not, I am sure. I have seen many of the county employees move into the private sector and become a hired gun for the developer or land owner. Nothing wrong with this, but it must be understood that “it is what it is.” (God! I hate that statement when used and I just did).
The County Commissioners pulled a “Solomon” and actually divided the baby in half with their decision. They have allowed the nuisance to continue and do harm to the land owners but not as much harm as before because there is a limitation placed upon the amount of harm that can be caused.
The land owners and Mr. Stam can go with this or an action to get an injunction to stop the nuisance can be filed and have the Court make the decision.
• • •
James B. Crowe is an attorney, builder and developer who resides in Coeur d’Alene.