PT22.S4.Q17- "Council Member: The preservation of individual...."

miriaml7

The stimulus tells us that property rights are super important to the city council. Then we are told that for that particular city, there are restrictions that prevent property owner from doing anything to their property (other than cutting their grass and getting rid of weeds).

I am not well-versed on how zoning laws work, so I wasn't sure who holds the power over enacting zoning laws. I got the feeling that it was the city council members, but I wasn't sure if we were allowed to make that assumption.

Going back to the paradox, I anticipated that a possible resolution was that there were other people in local government who had a say on whether or not to pass these zoning laws.

When I got to the answer choices:

A- "sometimes allowed exemptions" this further shows that the city council is restrictive. Just because they make at least one exception, doesn't erase the fact that they're almost always restricting the property owners' rights

B- I chose this answer choice. My reasoning was that property owners actually wanted things to be this way, despite the council members cries that the zoning laws were too restrictive to meet the needs of property owners. If that's what the people want, then is there really an issue? As I'm writing this out, I'm wondering if that's where I went wrong. Equating issue with paradox? The contradiction could still exist even if the people being affected by it don't see it as an issue, right? Ugh...I feel like I'm overthinking this:/

C- I saw this as a contradiction to our premise that says that, "property rights is of the utmost importance to city council"

D- I felt that this answer wanted us to assume that every time your neighbor does something to their property, it affects your own property. Which i don't think is a fair assumption. What if someone is adding an extra room to their home, which is located on three acres of land and the nearest neighbor is miles away? I could see how putting up a fence could have a direct impact on your next-door neighbor, but the fact that it's not something that happens every single time that you do something other than cut your grass or get rid of your weeds, really confuses me.

I felt that without the assumption that I pointed out, this answer wasn't strong enough to resolve the paradox.

E- I thought this further emphasized that property rights were being restricted, and thus deepened the mystery behind the contradiction

I would greatly appreciate clarification on why D is correct and why B is incorrect. Thanks in advance!

Admin Note: https://7sage.com/lsat_explanations/lsat-22-section-4-question-17/

Ashley2018-1

The stimulus says preserving property rights is really important to the city council and yet property owners can't do much with their own property aside from some superficial things like trimming grass and weeding. It's important to note the stimulus mentions that remodeling is prohibited. So why is it that this right is so important and yet owners are restricted in what they can do with their own property?
A.) That's great that property owners are sometimes allowed exemptions but it still doesn't explain why the law is generally so restrictive
B.) It's in their best interests to maintain these current laws and that might be true; who wants higher taxes?....but why is the law simultaneously so restrictive and yet supposedly protective of property rights?
C.) Ok...so why is the law restrictive?
D.) If it is true that someone's property rights can be restricted by another owner altering their own property, then it could explain why laws only allow owners to make superficial changes to their property and not "more extensive changes" such as "remodeling" (altering their own property)
E.) Doesn't begin to explain the discrepancy